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
This office action is in response to the amendment filed on 2/12/2026.
Claims 1 and 9 have been amended.
Claims 3-5 have been canceled.
Claims 1, 2, and 6-15 are pending and have been examined.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. EP 24175419 filed on 5/13/2024.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 9 are objected to because of the following informalities: Claims 1 and 9 recite “wherein the filtering option…” in the “in response” limitation. This was previously referred to as the filtering operation. The examiner finds that this is likely a typo and option should simply be changed to operation. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 1 and 9 are objected to because of the following informalities: Claims 1 and 9 recite “a filtering neural network model” and then throughout the claims sometimes refer to it as the filtering neural network or filtering neural network model. While it is clear that these refer to the same thing, the examiner recommends changing each instance of “training neural network” to “training neural network model” to improve clarity and consistency throughout the claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1, 2, and 6-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 1 and 9 recite “a processor of the public display device…” and “…performing by a processor of the server…” The claim then goes on to recite “wherein performing the filtering option includes the processor…” Thus, it is not clear as to whether the “the processor” refers to the processor of the server or the processor of the public display device. Based on where it appears in the claim, the examiner’s best guess is that it applies to the processor of the server and will be treated as such for purposes of examination. The examiner recommends changing “wherein performing the filtering option includes the processor…” to ““wherein performing the filtering option includes the processor of the server.”
Similarly, in the generating step, it recites “generating, by the server, a user-related advertisement for the predetermined merchandise based on at least the advertising text file by the processor applying…” Thus, it is not clear as to whether the “the processor” refers to the processor of the server or the processor of the public display device. Based on where it appears in the claim, the examiner’s best guess is that it applies to the processor of the server and will be treated as such for purposes of examination. The examiner recommends changing “the processor” to “the processor of the server.”
Similarly, in final step it recites “wherein the processor applying the filtered input string to the generative neural network model includes the processor automatically inputting…” Thus, it is not clear as to whether the “the processor” refers to the processor of the server or the processor of the public display device. Based on where it appears in the claim, the examiner’s best guess is that it applies to the processor of the server and will be treated as such for purposes of examination. The examiner recommends changing “the processor” to “the processor of the server.”
The remaining claims are rejected as each depends from claims 1 or 9.
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, 2, and 6-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1: Claims 1, 2, 6-8 are directed to a method. Claims 9-15 are directed to a system. Thus, on their face they fall within the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter.
Step 2A prong 1:
Claims 1 and 9 recite virtually identical claim limitations. Claim 1 will be used as representative for the analysis. Each claims additional elements will be addressed individually. The following limitations, when considered individually and as an ordered combination, are merely descriptive of abstract concepts:
Claims 1 and 9:
transmitting an access address to the public display, the access address being associated with an input entity for inputting user-input text comments about a predetermined merchandise;
displaying, by the public display, the access address thereon;
receiving, from a user via the input entity, a user-input text comment;
in response to receipt of the user-input text comment from the user via the input entity, performing a filtering operation on the user-input text comment so as to obtain a filtered input string, wherein the filtering operation includes applying the user-input text comment to a filtering model that is pre-trained to filter out parts of the user-input text comment deemed not suitable for use in generating a user-related advertisement and to obtain the filtered input string;
feeding the filtered input string as an input into a generative model, so as to obtain an advertising text as an output of the generative model;
generating a user-related advertisement for the predetermined merchandise based on at least the advertising text by applying the filtered input string to the generative model, and transmitting the user-related advertisement to the public display; and
displaying, by the public display, the user-related advertisement;
wherein the filtering operation further includes:
a partition mechanism of the filtering model splitting the user- input comment into a plurality of segments,
a sentiment mechanism of the filtering model determining that a first segment of the plurality of segments is associated with a negative sentiment, and
discarding the first segment associated with the negative sentiment;
the sentiment mechanism determining that a second segment of the plurality of segments is associated with a positive sentiment and providing the second segment to a relevance detection mechanism of the filtering model;
the relevance detection mechanism determining that the second segment is related to the user experience of the predetermined merchandise; and
upon determining that the second segment is related to the user experience of the predetermined merchandise, the filtering model outputting the second segment as part of the filtered input string;
wherein the applying the filtered input string to the generative model includes automatically inputting into the generative model the filtered input string and a prompt to prepare a poem or prose that includes the filtered input string in the advertising text
The following dependent claim limitations, when considered individually and as an ordered combination, are merely further descriptive of abstract concepts:
Claims 2, 10:
further comprising: in response to receipt of the access address, encoding the access address in a two-dimensional code readable by the user, and further displaying the code;
Claims 6, 14:
further comprising a step of receiving a user multimedia from the user via the input entity,
wherein the generating of the user-related advertisement is further based on the user multimedia
Claims 7, 15:
storing a merchandise multimedia for the predetermined merchandise, wherein the generating of the user-related advertisement is further based on the merchandise multimedia.
Claim 8:
wherein the method further includes providing a reward token to the user after generating the user-related advertisement based on the advertising text.
Claim 11:
wherein the filtering operation includes determining whether the user-input text comment is associated with a positive sentiment, a negative sentiment or a mixed sentiment, and discarding the user-input comment associated with the negative sentiment.
Claims 12:
wherein the filtering operation further includes determining whether the user-input text comment is related to a user experience of the predetermined merchandise, and discarding the user-input text comment that is not related to the user experience of the predetermined merchandise.
Claims 13:
wherein the filtering operation further includes splitting the user-input comment into a plurality of segments, and determining, with respect to each of the segments, whether the segment is associated with the positive sentiment, the negative sentiment or the mixed sentiment.
The claims provide a manner of displaying an address where a user can access an input mechanism to provide comments about predetermined merchandise. Upon receiving the comments, the comments are filtered and used to generate an advertisement for the predetermined merchandise. Thus, when considered individually and as an ordered combination, the claims embody certain methods of organizing human activity. Specifically, such activity is in the form of commercial interactions (in the form of advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors).
Step 2A prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claims recite the following additional elements: communication unit (claim 1, 9); server (claim 1, 6, 7, 9, 14, 15); processor of the server (claims 1, 9); wireless network (claims 1, 9); link (claim 1, 2, 9, 10); public display device (claim 1, 2, 9, 10); processor of the public display device controlling a display of the public display device to display a link (claims 1, 9); input website (claim 1, 6, 9, 14); field of an input website (claim 1, 9); user device (claim 1, 2, 6, 8, 9, 10, 14); wherein the two-dimensional code is a Quick Response (QR) code (claims 2, 10); filtering neural network model (claims 1, 9); generative neural network model (claim 1, 9); advertising text file (claim 1, 8, 9), multimedia file (6, 7, 14, 15); database (7, 15);
The server, processor of the server, wireless network, communication unit, public display device, user device, processor of the public display device controlling a display of the public display device to display a link, and database are recited at a high level of generality. They are merely used to “apply it” (the abstract idea) using generic computing devices (paragraphs [0021], [0022], [0023], [0027], [0028], [0034]). The generic computing devices are merely used to send and receive data (transmitting, receiving, providing), processing data (displaying, feeding, filtering, generating, encoding, determining, discarding, splitting, applying), and storing data (storing). Nothing in the claims improves upon computer technology, database technology, or a technical field (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The link, input website, advertising text file, field of an input website, and multimedia file merely provide a general link to a particular technological environment. The link merely provides an address in an online environment as opposed to a physical address where the user can provide their comments about the merchandise. The website merely provides that the comments are obtained online as opposed to using pen and paper. Similarly, the input field on the website is little more than entering information in a website environment as opposed to providing the information in any other manner. The advertising text file and multimedia file merely provide the providing information is in an electronic computing environment as opposed to receiving the text or multimedia in print, such as being written down on paper (see MPEP 2106.05 (h)).
The high level use of a quick response code to provide the link does not go beyond the “apply it” level of implementation. Nothing in the claims improves QR code technology or a technical field. It is merely used to provide the particular link of the invention as opposed to any other link (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The generative neural network model and filtering neural network model is recited at a high level of generality. Nothing in the claims improves upon neural network technology or a technical field. The neural networks are merely used to process the particular data of the invention. Thus, the high level use of a neural network is considered generic computer implementation and does not go beyond the “apply it” level.
Accordingly, when considered both individually and as an ordered combination, the additional elements do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Step 2B: The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Similarly, as above with regard to practical application, the additional elements when considered both individually and as an ordered combination, do not provide an inventive concept as they merely provide generic computing components used as a tool to implement the abstract idea or provide a general link to a particular technological environment or field of use (i.e. online, on a computer).
As a result, the claims are not patent eligible.
Regarding Prior Art:
While each limitation may be found individually in prior art, the examiner was unable to find a reasonable combination of references to teach each and every limitation in the context of the claimed invention. As a result, such rejection has been withdrawn.
Soon-Shiong (US 2014/0129393) is considered the closest prior art of record. Soon-Shiong teaches an electronic billboard that displays advertisements in a public place. The display includes QR codes for accessing purchasable products and at least providing comments on the products.
Boyce et al (Us 2020/0327585) teaches filtering reviews and providing them on a public display. The advertisement provided can include reviews and a rating. For example, “Service was excellent. Will definitely return.”
Gee et al (US 2022/0194401) teaches using a neural network to provide personalized recommendations to users. Resultant advertisements, predictions, or recommendations may include direct quotes from users who supplied the reviews and may include information, e.g., images, provided by these users. In one specific example, an advertisement for a highly rated tire may be created and include quotes from a specific person who reviewed the tire, as well as an image from the person of the actual tire from the person's vehicle that the person reviewed.
Krishnamoorthy (US 2012/0059848) teaches various techniques are contemplated in relation to generating advertisements. For example, in some embodiments, a whole review may be used as or re-formatted as an advertisement. In some embodiments, positive or interesting points only from a review are selected and used in or converted to an advertisement.
Longano (US 2020/0364746) teaches storing one or more of product advertisements which may include one or more of a product image, a product price, and a product review in a database.
Mysen et al (US 2018/0285953) generally teaches storing advertisements including images of products and product reviews
Li (US 2016/0307227) generally teaches capturing images of users using products, uploading reviews, and providing advertisements including the images and product review
Carlisle et al (US 2018/0349485) teaches using artificial intelligence to filter out negative reviews. Thus, all negative content can be filtered out, and never shown to the user, such that the user only reviews positive content in his or her search results and/or content feeds.
Response to Arguments
The examiner has considered but does not find persuasive applicant’s arguments regarding rejections under 35 USC 101.
The 5 items outlined describe abstract concepts. The claims are very clearly directed to certain methods of organizing activity as they focus on generating an providing advertising as outlined in the rejection above. The use of the neural network is considered an additional element and addressed under step 2A prong 2 and step 2B. The fact the neural network requires various segmenting and inputs does not make the claim any less abstract.
With regard to the use neural networks, all of the operations performed using the neural networks are merely part of the abstract idea. The neural networks are recited at a high level of generality. They are claimed by what they do rather than how they do it. Nothing in the claims describes an improvement to neural network technology or a technical field. Thus, they do not go beyond the “apply it” level of implementation. The computing devices recited in the claims are also generic computing devices as discussed above.
Similarly, as discussed above with regard to practical application, the additional elements do not provide significantly more as outlined in the rejection above. The examiner need not provide that the applicant usage of the neural network is well-understood, routine, or conventional. The examiner has not indicated that any of the additional elements were insignificant extra solution activity and thus such analysis is moot. As a result, such rejection have been maintained.
The examiner has considered and find persuasive applicant’s arguments regarding rejections under 35 USC 103. As a result, such rejections have been withdrawn.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 CHRISTOPHER STROUD whose telephone number is (571)272-7930. The examiner can normally be reached Mon. - Fri. 9AM-5PM.
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, Waseem Ashraff can be reached at (571) 270-3948. 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.
CHRISTOPHER STROUD
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3621B
/CHRISTOPHER STROUD/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3621