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 .
Status of Claims
The following is a non-final office action.
Claims 1-20 are currently pending and have been examined on their merits.
Claims 1, 3, 7-8, 10, 14-15, and 17 are currently amended see REMARKS August 11, 2026
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 August 11, 2026, has been entered.
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.
Step 1: Claim 1-7 recites a method (i.e. a series of steps), claims 8-14 recite a processor, and claims 15-20 recite a system and therefore each claim falls within one of the four statutory categories.
Step 2A prong 1 (Is a judicial exception recited?):
The representative claim 1 recites: a method, comprising: performing, sentiment analysis with respect to content associated with an item; automatically receiving, from one or more sources, user-generated content previously submitted to the one or more sources as a response to the content, at least a portion of the user- generated content including sentiment associated with the content and including sentiment associated with the item; performing, sentiment analysis of user-generated content submitted in response to the content associated with the item, at least a portion of the user-generated content including both sentiment associated with the content and sentiment associated with the item; storing, determined sentiment information associated with the item; and generating, responsive to a query for information about a creator of the content associated with the item, one or more visualization corresponding to a predicted reason for one or more changes to a creator sentiment score, the predicted reason being based on an analysis of the determined sentiment information over time.
Claim 8: perform, sentiment analysis with respect to content associated with an item and generated at a first time; automatically receiving, from one or more sources, first user-generated content generated at a second time and previously submitted to the one or more sources as a response to the content; perform, sentiment analysis of first user- generated content; automatically receiving, from the one or more sources, second user-generated content generated at a third time later than each of the first time and the second time and previously submitted to the one or more sources as a response to the content; perform, sentiment analysis of the second user-generated content submitted in response to the content; store, determined sentiment information associated with the item; determine, responsive to one or more input queries, a temporal change in sentiment for the item based, at least in part, on a change in sentiment over time between the content, the first user-generated content, and the second user-generated content; and provide, responsive to the one or more input queries, a visualization of the temporal change for display.
Claim 15: determine, based in part upon content associated with an item and user-generated content associated with the content associated with the item, sentiment data for the item, the sentiment data including first sentiment data associated with the item and second sentiment data associated with a creator of the content associated with the item, to be stored and associated with information about the item, and to generate, responsive to a query, a visualization of one or more of a temporal change in the first sentiment data or the second sentiment data, corresponding to a predicted reason based on an analysis of respective patterns over time.
The claims recite a certain method of organizing human activity. The claims recite a certain method of organizing human activity as the disclosure is directed to commercial or legal interactions. The claims recite a series of steps for performing sentiment analysis on user generated content associated with an item to be provided to other users when requested. The steps recite a method for allowing a user such as a customer to query about the sentiment or opinions of others concerning a product. The method allows for further advertising for a product by presenting a user with review information such as sentiment corresponding to a product.
Alternatively, the claims recite a mental process. The claims recite a method for performing sentiment analysis on a piece of content associated with an item and user-generated content submitted in response to the content associated with an item, such as determining a user’s feeling in a review for a product, and providing the sentiment information to a user in response to a query which can be performed in the human mind or by using simple tools such as pen and paper. The courts have identified concepts such as observation, evaluation, judgement and opinion as reciting a mental process. Therefore, merely analyzing the sentiment of content corresponding to an item and providing the analyzed information to a user when requested is a mental process.
Step 2A Prong 2 (Is the exception integrated into a practical application?): The claims additionally recite;
Claim 1: A computer, a first trained language model, a second trained language model, and a repository, the determined sentiment information being based on the sentiment analysis performed using the first trained language model and the second trained language model, and one or more digital visualizations.
Claim 8: A processor, comprising: one or more circuits, a first trained language model, a second trained language model, and a repository, the determined sentiment information being based on the sentiment analysis performed using the first trained language model and the second trained language model,
Claim 15: A system comprising: one or more processors to use one or more language models and a repository, and a digital visualization.
However, the additional elements merely amount to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(f). Merely utilizing generic computer elements such as a computer and a user device to perform basic actions of the abstract idea by receiving, analyzing, and storing information. Furthermore, a method for processing and storing information does not amount to improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(a), applying the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(b), effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(c), such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(e). Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Step 2B (Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more that the judicial exception?): As discussed above, the additional imitations amount to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(f). See reasoning for Step 2A prong 2. Therefore, the claims do not amount to significantly more as they do not recite an improvement to a technology or technical field. The claims merely recite “apply it” or applying generic computer elements to receiving and analyze information.
Claims 2-7, 9-14, and 16-20 are directed to further narrowing the abstract idea of extracting information associated with an item and performing sentiment analysis to help generate a result such as a summary of the content or identifying features for potential improvement.
Additional elements recited by the dependent claims include:
Claims 6, 13, and 20: a user interface.
However, these elements are directed to merely “apply it” or applying generic computer elements to perform the abstract idea.
Therefore, claims 1-20 are rejected under U.S.C. 101.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see REMARKS, filed August 11, 2026, with respect to the rejections of claims 1-20 under U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered and are not persuasive.
The applicant argues that the claims do not recite an abstract idea. However, the examiner respectfully disagrees as the claims recite a method for performing sentiment analysis with respect to content associated with an item; storing determined sentiment information; and generating one or more visualization corresponding to a predicted reason for one or more changes to a creator sentiment score. The claims recite a mental process as the claims merely recite a series of steps of receiving and analyzing user content information to determine sentiment scores and generating a visualization of the scores. Receiving and processing information and generating an output are a mental processes as the courts have recited similar concepts, such as observation, evaluation, opinions, and judgement, as being mental processes. Additionally, the claims can be practically performed by a person mentally, or with simple tool such as pen and paper. As a person is capable of mentally performing sentiment analysis on user generated content pertaining to an item such as a product review, as well as analyzing the comments of other users pertaining to the review, and generating a sentiment score for the comments. Additionally, a person is capable of using simple tools such as pen and paper to generate a visualization corresponding to the sentiment analysis to display the changes in sentiment over time. Therefore, the claims recite a mental process. Alternatively, the claims recite a certain method of organizing human activity as they recite commercial interactions. The claims recite a process of gather user reviews pertaining to a product or item and generating a graphical visual representation of sentiments over time. The claims merely recite a process of monitoring consumer sentiment towards an item or product by performing basic functions of receiving and analyzing user generated content for sentiment values. Therefore, the claims recite an abstract idea.
The representative further argues that the claims are directed to a practical application. However, the examiner respectfully disagrees as the additional elements of a computer to implement the method and using trained language models to perform the sentiment analysis are not improvements to a technology or technical field. The additional elements are directed to merely “apply it” or applying generic computer elements to perform the abstract idea of receiving and analyzing user generated content to determine an output. Therefore, the claims are not directed to a practical application.
As the additional elements are directed to merely “apply it” or applying generic computer element to perform the abstract idea they further do not amount to significantly more.
Therefore, the examiner maintains the rejection of claims 1, 8, and 15 under U.S.C. 101.
Applicant argues that claims 2-7, 9-14, and 16-20 are allowable as being dependent on claims 1, 8 and 15 and therefore are rejected under U.S.C. 101
Applicant’s arguments, see REMARKS, filed August 11, 2026, with respect to the rejections of Claims 1-2, 6-9, 13-16, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Clark (US 2017/0124575) in view of Hanson (US 8825515) are persuasive.
Claims 1, 8, and 15: The applicant argues that the current prior art of does not disclose the newly amended claim limitations of “generating, responsive to a query for information about a creator of the content associated with the item, one or more digital visualizations corresponding to a predicted reason for one or more changes to a creator sentiment score, the predicted reason being based on an analysis of the determined sentiment information over time.”
Upon further search and consideration the examiner agrees that the current combination of prior art does not disclose the newly amended claim limitations.
The closes prior art Clark (US 2017/0124575) discloses a system of using natural language processing to ingest product reviews and analyzing the sentiment of the reviews to generate a sentiment score for each product (Clark [0003]). Clark discloses a system of ranking a plurality of product features based on the sentiment score based on user reviews.
The second closes prior art Hanson (US 8825515) teaches a system of continuously receiving user generated content to be able to perform sentiment analysis and generate a visual representation of the changes in sentiment of the content over time (Hanson [Col. 6 ll. 40-Col. 7 ll. 37]).
The third closes prior art Melo (US 2017/0270588) teaches a system of processing product reviews. Melo further teaches displaying a visible indicator of reviews for a product based on analyzing a plurality of reviews from users over time.
The fourth closest prior art Roy (US 2021/0241289) teaches a system of collection a plurality of user interactions related to a product. Roy further teaches comparing user satisfactions with a threshold and determining an action to help reduce a user’s dissatisfaction with a product.
However, the art individually or in combination do not disclose the newly amended claim limitations.
Therefore, claim 1, 8, and 15 are allowed over U.S.C. 103.
Claims 2-7, 9-14, and 16-20 were argued as being allowable only as being dependent on claims 1, 8, and 15. Therefore, they are also allowable over U.S.C. 103.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure:
Ebi (US 2023/0394511) Integrated system and method for determining consumer insight and analyzing market trends.
Bala (US 2022/0292527) Methods of assessing long term indicators of sentiment.
Chang (US 2012/0185544) Method and apparatus for analyzing and applying data related to customer interactions with social media.
Werth (US 2015/0149153) Systems and methods for identifying and recording the sentiment of a message, posting, or other online communication using an explicit sentiment identifier.
Daniluk (US 2008/0162157) Method and apparatus for creating and aggregating rankings of people, companies, and products based on social network acquittances and authorities’ opinions.
Mass (US 2014/0071134) Visualization of user sentiment for product features.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to COREY RUSS whose telephone number is (571)270-5902. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 7:30-4:30.
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, Lynda Jasmin can be reached on 5712726782. 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.
/COREY RUSS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3629
