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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on April 14, 2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed April 14, 2026 has been entered. Claims 1-20 remain pending in the application. Applicant's amendments to the Claims have overcome each and every 101 and 102 rejections previously set forth in the Final Office Action mailed January 21, 2026.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The limitation “excluding a review rating scale” in claims 1 and 13 is not supported by the original disclosure. The Specification discloses “star ratings”, but not “review rating scale” (See Paragraph(s) [0080], [0082]-[0083], [0098]).
Appropriate correction/clarification is required.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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) 1-5 and 7-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Casalino (US 20200151777 A1) in view of Chea (US 20070078833 A1; already of record in IDS).
Regarding Claims 1 and 12-13, Casalino teaches A keyword review method executed by a computer system having at least one processor configured to execute computer-readable instructions included in a memory, the method comprising (Casalino: Paragraph(s) 0030-0031, 0080-0081): A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing a computer-implemented program for executing the keyword review method (Casalino: Paragraph(s) 0080-0081, 0084): A computer system comprising: at least one processor configured to execute computer-readable instructions included in a memory, wherein the at least one processor is configured to execute the processes including (Casalino: Paragraph(s) 0084):
extracting at least one keyword related to a place in a form of at least one of a word, a phrase, and a sentence from a result of a search relating to the place on the Internet (Casalino: Abstract; Paragraph(s) 0027, 0029, 0077, 0082 teach(es) the end user system may submit a review 172 to the merchant system (wherein the merchant system is integrated with the knowledge search system), submit a review associated with the merchant system to the review management system, and/or submit a review associated with the merchant system to one or more online review platforms; an end user system (e.g., a reviewer) may submit a review which contains multiple different review elements (e.g., words, characters, numbers symbols, images, etc.).. the review sentiment analysis module is configured to receive the review, identify the one or more review elements, and extract or parse out or identify a set of key review elements to be used in the generation of a review response); providing the extracted at least one keyword to an operator of the place (Casalino: Paragraph(s) 0056, 0065 teach(es) the merchant system may access the review via a “review detail view” portion of the interface presented by the review management system. The merchant system may clicks a “plus” icon (or other suitable icon or indicator) in the review response text box. The merchant user may select one or more of the following example embedded fields associated with a review as presented by the review management system; enhanced content analysis of end user review allows merchant users to view review snippets for a given adjective, navigate to a full set of reviews for an adjective or topic, and view how locations are performing with respect to a topic); registering at least one of the extracted at least one keyword selected by the operator of the place as representing features of the place in a keyword list related to the place (Casalino: Paragraph(s) 0069, 0072, 0077, 0032, 0037, 0048, 0056, 0060, 0065, 0075 teach(es) the review management system may provide functionality to enable a user to view a sentiment page associated with one or more reviews. In an embodiment, the user may navigate to a “Sentiment” tab of a “Reviews” portion of an interface generated by the review management systems; the merchant system may access the review via a “review detail view” portion of the interface presented by the review management system. The merchant system may clicks a “plus” icon (or other suitable icon or indicator) in the review response text box. The merchant user may select one or more of the following example embedded fields associated with a review as presented by the review management system; enhanced content analysis of end user review allows merchant users to view review snippets for a given adjective, navigate to a full set of reviews for an adjective or topic, and view how locations are performing with respect to a topic); displaying the keyword list of the at least one keyword selected by the operator of the place as a review writing screen on a user terminal of a user who …; and registering at least one keyword selected though the user interface from the keyword list by the user as the new review for the place by the user (Casalino: Paragraph(s) 0069, 0072-0073, 0032, 0037, 0056, 0065 teach(es) the user may view a ranked list of keywords for their reviews, as shown in the example interface of FIG. 10; the user may click a “View More Keywords” link to reveal additional keywords (e.g., ten or more keywords at a time). According to embodiments, the review management system may provide functionality to enable a user to sort multiple sentiments or sentiment pages; the merchant system may access the review via a “review detail view” portion of the interface presented by the review management system. The merchant system may clicks a “plus” icon (or other suitable icon or indicator) in the review response text box. The merchant user may select one or more of the following example embedded fields associated with a review as presented by the review management system; enhanced content analysis of end user review allows merchant users to view review snippets for a given adjective, navigate to a full set of reviews for an adjective or topic, and view how locations are performing with respect to a topic).
However, Casalino does not explicitly teach a user who wish to provide a new review of the place, the review writing screen including the keyword list being displayed according to at least one predetermined topic group and as a user interface for enabling the user to select from the keyword list, and excluding a review rating scale.
Chea from same or similar field of endeavor teaches displaying the keyword list of the at least one keyword selected by the operator of the place as a review writing screen on a user terminal of a user who wish to provide a new review of the place, the review writing screen including the keyword list being displayed according to at least one predetermined topic group and as a user interface for enabling the user to select from the keyword list, and excluding a review rating scale (Chea: Paragraph(s) 0039, 0044-0045 teach(es) The user base can be allowed to remove keywords by “voting” such as by clicking on a “remove” button or unchecking the checkbox next to a keyword's listing; a keyword's effectiveness in conveying a product feature or defect can be rated and keywords with collective low ratings can be automatically eliminated; A user may enter a headline for a new review. A “tips” link, if clicked, provides suggestions on a format for a good headline; The ratings can also be used to detect and disqualify keywords submitted by users who continually criticize or praise products, product lines, products from specific manufacturers, etc. Note that the rating feature is optional and need not be included in all embodiments).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Casalino to incorporate the teachings of Chea for a user who wish to provide a new review of the place, the review writing screen including the keyword list being displayed according to at least one predetermined topic group and as a user interface for enabling the user to select from the keyword list, and excluding a review rating scale.
There is motivation to combine Chea into Casalino because Chea’s teachings of ratings that can be eliminated would facilitate handling a situation that the keyword is not relevant anymore due to changes over time or place (Chea: Paragraph(s) 0039, 0044-0045).
Regarding Claims 2 and 14, the combination of Casalino and Chea teaches all the limitations of claims 1 and 13 above; and Casalino further teaches further comprises: building a candidate keyword pool of the extracted at least one keyword related to each business type, wherein the candidate keyword pool is provided to the operator of the place (Casalino: Paragraph(s) 0037, 0069, 0072-0073, 0077, 0029, 0056, 0065 teach(es) the review merchant system generates an interface accessible by the merchant user to display the one or more reviews (e.g., example reviews shown in FIGS. 1D and 1E); The interface includes multiple response components (e.g., greeting, value statement, sentiment keywords, and closing) for which component values can be selected or inputted by the merchant system to generate a review response).
Regarding Claims 3 and 15, the combination of Casalino and Chea teaches all the limitations of claims 1 and 13 above; and Casalino further teaches wherein the at least one keyword related to the place is extracted from at least one of a document, search log data, and a text review on the Internet (Casalino: Paragraph(s) 0029, 0032, 0034, 0040-0041 teach(es) the review sentiment analysis module is configured to receive the review, identify the one or more review elements, and extract or parse out or identify a set of key review elements to be used in the generation of a review response; the review sentiment analysis module can extract from the review a set of review elements including the following elements: “barber”, “haircut”, “floor”, “Bart” “nice”, “great”, “dirty”, and “best”, as shown in FIG. 1B).
Regarding Claim 4, the combination of Casalino and Chea teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above; and Casalino further teaches wherein the at least one keyword is extracted from a word dictionary that includes a word or a hashtag appearing in a document on the Internet in which the place is mentioned (Casalino: Paragraph(s) 0040-0041 teach(es) the data store stores multiple reviews associated with the merchant system that are received or collected from any of a number of different sources (e.g., a first party website of the merchant user, a third-party website such as Google™, Yelp™, etc., or other source of reviews); the processing logic can maintain a data store including predefined key review elements (e.g., characters, words, phrases, symbols, etc. that are identified as representative or indicative of a sentiment, person, good, service, keyword, modifier, etc.)).
Regarding Claim 5, the combination of Casalino and Chea teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above; and Casalino further teaches wherein the at least one keyword is extracted from a text review of the place based on feedback of other users on the text review of the place (Casalino: Paragraph(s) 0021, 0054, 0058 teach(es) Consumers of goods and services (also referred to as “end users” or “customers”) provide feedback regarding the purchasing and consumption experience by way of online reviews; if a reviewer includes feedback indicating that the chicken would be better if it was marinated, the review management system can propose language asking “was the marinated chicken better than last time?”).
Regarding Claims 7 and 16, the combination of Casalino and Chea teaches all the limitations of claims 2 and 14 above; and Casalino further teaches wherein at least one of a keyword representing factual information regarding the place and a keyword having negative connotation regarding the place are excluded from the candidate keyword pool (Casalino: Paragraph(s) 0031, 0045, 0049 teach(es) a review element can be designated as having a negative sentiment and assigned a negative sentiment score (e.g., −100 to −1)).
Regarding Claims 8 and 17, the combination of Casalino and Chea teaches all the limitations of claims 1 and 13 above; and Casalino further teaches wherein the review using the keyword list is registered within a certain number of times based on a business type or a region of the place (Casalino: Paragraph(s) 0072-0073 teach(es) the review management system can generate a “Sentiment by Collection” section including a list of collections of keyword groups (e.g., “Food”, “Place”, and “Staff”) with a keyword count value (e.g., a number of keywords in the collection)).
Regarding Claims 9 and 18, the combination of Casalino and Chea teaches all the limitations of claims 1 and 13 above; and Casalino further teaches wherein the keyword review method further comprises providing, by the at least one processor, keyword statistics on keywords registered as the review for the place (Casalino: Paragraph(s) 0072 teach(es) the review management system can generate additional values associated with the Sentiment by Collection section, as described above, based on aggregated statistics for set of the keywords in each collection).
Regarding Claims 10 and 19, the combination of Casalino and Chea teaches all the limitations of claims 9 and 18 above; and Casalino further teaches wherein the providing of the keyword statistics comprises providing the keyword statistics by at least one criterion among unit period, gender, age, and region (Casalino: Paragraph(s) 0070-0072, 0075-0076, 0030, 0034, 0036).
Regarding Claims 11 and 20, the combination of Casalino and Chea teaches all the limitations of claims 1 and 13 above; and Casalino further teaches wherein the keyword review method further comprises providing, by the at least one processor, at least one keyword registered as the review for the place as a search filter for a search (Casalino: Paragraph(s) 0070-0071, 0075).
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Casalino in view of Chea, as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Mediratta (US 20170132676 A1).
Regarding Claim 6, the combination of Casalino and Chea teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above; however the combination does not explicitly teach wherein the at least one keyword is extracted through learning using an artificial intelligence (AI) model for a keyword on a document related to the place.
Mediratta from same or similar field of endeavor teaches wherein the at least one keyword is extracted through learning using an artificial intelligence (AI) model for a keyword on a document related to the place (Mediratta: Paragraph(s) 0064, 0076-0077, 0086, 0033 teach(es) the knowledge tree is configured to generate a generalized review of the each of the result retrieved using machine learning and artificial intelligence techniques).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of the combination of Casalino and Chea to incorporate the teachings of Mediratta for wherein the registering as the keyword list related to the place comprises extracting a keyword related to the place through learning using an artificial intelligence (AI) model for a keyword on a document related to the place.
There is motivation to combine Mediratta into the combination of Casalino and Chea because Mediratta’s teachings of artificial intelligence techniques would facilitate extracting keywords (Mediratta: Paragraph(s) 0064, 0076-0077, 0086).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed April 14, 2026 have been fully considered.
Regarding applicant’s argument under Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 that “Casalino.. does not disclose displaying the keyword list of the at least one keyword selected by the operator of the place as a review writing screen on a user terminal of a user who wish to provide a new review of the place, or registering the keyword selected though the user interface from the keyword list on the review writing screen by the user as the new review for the place by the use,” examiner respectfully argues that the combination of Casalino and Chea teaches all the features as stated above with respect to Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 (Casalino: Paragraph(s) 0069, 0072-0073, 0032, 0037, 0056, 0065; and Chea: Paragraph(s) 0039, 0044-0045).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CLAY LEE whose telephone number is (571)272-3309. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8-5pm EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Neha Patel can be reached at (571)270-1492. 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.
/CLAY C LEE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3699
Prosecution Insights