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 is a first office action on the merits, in response to the claims filed on May 29, 2024.
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Claims 1-20 have been examined.
Claim Interpretation
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification.
Examiner’s Note: claim 1 recites “A method for providing a vote feature through a profile screen by a server, comprising: receiving a request from a first user terminal to post creation information for a poll and a poll interface based on the creation information on a first user’s profile screen, wherein the poll interface comprises multiple choices….”. The originally-filed specification discloses, see Fig. 1 and paragraphs [0052]-[0053]: In the present disclosure, the server 10 may be a device capable of transmitting and receiving information through communication with a user terminal over a network. The server 10 may be implemented as a single computer device or a plurality of computer devices providing commands, codes, files, content, services, etc. [0053]: The server 10 may include a processor 11, a memory 12, and a communication unit 13. Therefore, Examiner interprets the server include a processor, a memory, and a communication unit 13. The Examiner recommends by way of example only, having the claims be amended to include claim language e.g., a server include a processor, a memory, and a communication unit 13.
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.
In the instant case, claims 1-20 are directed to a method. Therefore, these claims fall within the four statutory categories of invention.
The claims recite an abstract idea of providing a vote feature in a social media. Specifically, the claims recite “receiving a request from a first user terminal to post creation information for a poll and a poll interface based on the creation information on a first user’s profile screen, wherein the poll interface comprises multiple choices; in response to a request to view the first user’s profile screen from a second user terminal, providing the first user’s profile screen containing a poll interface to the second user terminal; receiving selection information indicative of selection of at least one of the multiple choices from the second user terminal; providing selection completion information reflecting the selection information to the second user terminal; and in response to a request to view the first user’s profile screen from the first user terminal, providing the first user’s profile screen containing progress information of the poll to the first user terminal”, which is grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” (i.e., interactions between people (including social activities) grouping of abstract ideas in prong one of step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test (See MPEP 2106.04(a)) because it describes a process for carrying out a interactions between people (including social activities) between parties that involves communicating data needed to complete a vote/poll. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea (See MPEP 2106.04).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because, when analyzed under prong two of step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test (See MPEP 2106.04(a or d)), the additional element(s) of the claim(s) such as a server include a processor, a memory, and a communication unit 13 (in light of the originally-filed specification para [0052]-[0053] and Fig. 1) merely use(s) a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Specifically, the server perform(s) the steps or functions of “receiving a request from a first user terminal to post creation information for a poll and a poll interface based on the creation information on a first user’s profile screen, wherein the poll interface comprises multiple choices; in response to a request to view the first user’s profile screen from a second user terminal, providing the first user’s profile screen containing a poll interface to the second user terminal; receiving selection information indicative of selection of at least one of the multiple choices from the second user terminal; providing selection completion information reflecting the selection information to the second user terminal; and in response to a request to view the first user’s profile screen from the first user terminal, providing the first user’s profile screen containing progress information of the poll to the first user terminal”. The use of a processor/computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it requires no more than a computer performing functions that correspond to acts required to carry out the abstract idea. The additional elements do not involve improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field (See MPEP 2106.05(a)), the claims do not apply the abstract idea with, or by use of, a particular machine (See MPEP 2106.05(b)), the claims do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (See MPEP 2106.05(c)), and the claims do not apply or use the abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP 2106.05(e) and Vanda Memo). Therefore, the claims do not, for example, purport to improve the functioning of a computer. Nor do they effect an improvement in any other technology or technical field. Accordingly, the additional elements do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when analyzed under step 2B of the Alice/Mayo test (See MPEP 2106.05), the additional element(s) of using a server to perform the steps amounts to no more than using a computer or processor to automate and/or implement the abstract idea of providing a vote feature in a social media. As discussed above, taking the claim elements separately, the server perform(s) the steps or functions of “receiving a request from a first user terminal to post creation information for a poll and a poll interface based on the creation information on a first user’s profile screen, wherein the poll interface comprises multiple choices; in response to a request to view the first user’s profile screen from a second user terminal, providing the first user’s profile screen containing a poll interface to the second user terminal; receiving selection information indicative of selection of at least one of the multiple choices from the second user terminal; providing selection completion information reflecting the selection information to the second user terminal; and in response to a request to view the first user’s profile screen from the first user terminal, providing the first user’s profile screen containing progress information of the poll to the first user terminal”. These functions correspond to the actions required to perform the abstract idea. Viewed as a whole, the combination of elements recited in the claims merely recite the concept of providing a vote feature in a social media. Therefore, the use of these additional elements does no more than employ the computer as a tool to automate and/or implement the abstract idea. The use of a computer or processor to merely automate and/or implement the abstract idea cannot provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself (MPEP 2106.05(I)(A)(f) & (h)). Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding dependent claims
Claims 2 and 15 recite: wherein the selection completion information is displayed in place of the poll interface on the first user’s profile screen.
Claim 3 recites: wherein the creation information comprises at least one of a topic of the poll, information on multiple choices, a poll end point, or information on a position and size of the poll interface on the first user’s profile screen.
Claim 4 recites: wherein the first user’s profile screen comprises a profile picture area and an editable area distinct from the profile picture area, and wherein the poll interface is displayed in the editable area.
Claim 5 recites: when the poll ends, in response to a request to view the first user’s profile screen from the first user terminal, providing the first user’s profile screen containing the result information of the poll to the first user terminal; and in response to a request to view details about the result information from the first user terminal, providing voter information about the multiple choices to the first user terminal, wherein the voter information about the multiple choices is provided only within a predetermined period after the poll ends.
Claim 6 recites: when the poll ends, in response to a request to view the first user’s profile screen from a terminal of a user who is a friend with the first user, providing the first user’s profile screen containing the result information of the poll to the terminal of the user.
Claim 7 recites: when the poll ends, in response to a request to view the first user’s profile screen from the second user terminal, providing the first user’s profile screen containing the result information of the poll to the second user terminal; and when the poll ends, in response to a request to view the first user’s profile screen from a third user terminal that did not participate in the poll, providing the first user terminal not containing the result information of the poll to the third user terminal.
Claim 8 recites: after receiving the request to post the creation information for the poll and the poll interface, providing notification information associated with posting of the poll interface to a terminal of a user who is a friend with the first user.
Claim 9 recites: wherein the notification information is provided in a form of a profile update notification for the first user.
Claim 10 recites: wherein after receiving the request to post the creation information for the poll and the poll interface, notification information associated with a scheduled end of the poll is provided to a terminal of a user who is a friend with the first user and did not participate in the poll.
Claim 11 recites: when the poll ends, providing notification information associated with the end of the poll to a terminal of at least one user who is a friend with the first user.
Claim 12 recites: wherein the at least one user who is a friend with the first user is a user who has participated in the poll among users who are friends with the first user.
Claim 13 recites: wherein the notification information is provided in a form of a profile update notification for the first user.
Claim 15 recites: wherein the selection completion information is displayed in place of the poll interface on the poll creator’s profile screen.
Claim 16 recites: when the poll ends, in response to an interaction to view the poll creator’s profile screen, displaying the poll creator’s profile screen containing result information of the poll.
Claim 17 recites: prior to displaying the poll creator’s profile screen containing the poll interface, displaying notification information associated with the poll interface being posted on the poll creator’s profile screen.
Claim 18 recites: wherein the notification information is displayed corresponding to friend information of the poll creator on a friend list containing friend information of at least one user.
Claim 19 recites: when the poll ends, displaying notification information associated with the end of the poll.
Dependent claims 2-13 and 15-19 further describe the abstract idea of providing a vote feature in a social media. The dependent claims do not include additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or that provide significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, the dependent claims are also not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-4, 8, 11-12, 14-15 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Baldwin et al. (US 20160006775 A1, “Baldwin”).
Regarding claims 1: Baldwin discloses: A method for providing a vote feature through a profile screen by a server, comprising (see Fig. 2 and related text):
receiving a request from a first user terminal to post creation information for a poll and a poll interface based on the creation information on a first user’s profile screen, wherein the poll interface comprises multiple choices (Baldwin [0069]: The social networking system 100 includes a question interface module 220, an answer interface module 230, a newsfeed module 240, a suggestion module 250, a predictive text module 260, an object tagging module 270, a web server 280, question data storage module 155, answer data storage module 160, and social graph data storage module 165; [0025]: A questioning user 105 uses question interface 140 in ask a question to users of social networking system 100. The question interface 140 may be graphically rendered on the social networking system 100 in various locations to encourage users to use the question and answer service. In one embodiment, for example the embodiment of FIG. 6, question interface 140 comprises a dedicated social networking system page. Alternatively, question interface 140 may appear in a portion of another social networking system page, such as in a margin of a user profile. A user may add a tab or a button in a social networking system GUI 130 which may be clicked to display the question interface 140; [0025]: Question interface 140 may allow a questioning user 105 to submit one or more potential answers to a submitted question. For example, a question user 105 may ask “What is your favorite beach in Northern California?”, and may include the potential answers “Stinson”, “Manresa”, and “Pacifica.”), (see Fig. 3);
in response to a request to view the first user’s profile screen from a second user terminal, providing the first user’s profile screen containing a poll interface to the second user terminal (Baldwin [0025]: In one embodiment, for example the embodiment of FIG. 6, question interface 140 comprises a dedicated social networking system page. Alternatively, question interface 140 may appear in a portion of another social networking system page, such as in a margin of a user profile. A user may add a tab or a button in a social networking system GUI 130 which may be clicked to display the question interface 140; [0029]: Question interface 140 may include the functionality to enable a questioning user 105 to “tag” other users in a question. A questioning user 105 may tag a user in order to target the question to particular social networking system users…Tagging users in a question may cause a pop up window to display a list of the tagged users within question interface 140 when a viewing user 125 moves a user input (such as a computer mouse pointer or a finger on a touch-sensitive display) over the question or the names of the tagged users displayed below the question. Selecting a tagged user in the list of tagged users may cause the viewing user 125 to be directed to the profile page of the selected tagged user);
receiving selection information indicative of selection of at least one of the multiple choices from the second user terminal (Baldwin [0077]: Answer data for the question is received 310 from answering users; [0036]: Answering users 110 of the social networking system 100 may use answer interface 145 to answer a question asked by a questioning user 105 of social networking system 100; [0038]: Answer interface 145 may comprise a field which allows viewing users 125 to submit an answer to an associated question. For example, in the embodiment of FIG. 6, field 615 allows a viewing user 125 to type an answer to question 600. Submitted answers may be saved, displayed to and selected by future viewing users 125. Answer interface 145 may also comprise a series of potential answers submitted by questioning user 105 or other answering users 110 which a viewing user 125 can vote on using, for example, buttons associated with each answer), (see Fig. 6);
providing selection completion information reflecting the selection information to the second user terminal (Baldwin [0043]: Answer interface 145 may display answer data, such as the number or percentage of votes each answer has received. In one embodiment, displaying answer data comprises textually displaying a number or percentage of votes in conjunction with, over or next to each displayed answer. In one embodiment, displaying answer data comprises graphically representing the number or percentage of votes.), (see paragraphs [0043]-[0045] and Fig. 6); and
in response to a request to view the first user’s profile screen from the first user terminal, providing the first user’s profile screen containing progress information of the poll to the first user terminal (Baldwin [0025]: A questioning user 105 uses question interface 140 in ask a question to users of social networking system 100. The question interface 140 may be graphically rendered on the social networking system 100 in various locations to encourage users to use the question and answer service; [0037]: The answer interface 145 may be graphically rendered on the social networking system 100 in various locations. The answer interface 145 may be coupled to or displayed in conjunction with the question interface 140. For example, in the event of a dedicated social networking system question and answer service page, recently submitted questions may be displayed, each displayed question having the functionality to accept and display answers from social networking system users; [0043]: Answer interface 145 may display answer data, such as the number or percentage of votes each answer has received. In one embodiment, displaying answer data comprises textually displaying a number or percentage of votes in conjunction with, over or next to each displayed answer. In one embodiment, displaying answer data comprises graphically representing the number or percentage of votes), (see paragraphs [0025], [0037], [0043] and [0045 and Fig. 6).
Regarding claims 2 and 15: Baldwin discloses the limitations of claim 1 above.
Baldwin further discloses: The method of claim 1, wherein the selection completion information is displayed in place of the poll interface on the first user’s profile screen (Baldwin [0037]: The answer interface 145 may be graphically rendered on the social networking system 100 in various locations. The answer interface 145 may be coupled to or displayed in conjunction with the question interface 140.), (see paragraphs [0037] and [0043]).
Regarding claim 3: Baldwin discloses the limitations of claim 1 above.
Baldwin further discloses: The method of claim 1, wherein the creation information comprises at least one of a topic of the poll, information on multiple choices, a poll end point, or information on a position and size of the poll interface on the first user’s profile screen (Baldwin [0027]: Question interface 140 may allow a questioning user 105 to submit one or more potential answers to a submitted question. For example, a question user 105 may ask “What is your favorite beach in Northern California?”, and may include the potential answers “Stinson”, “Manresa”, and “Pacifica.”), (see paragraphs [0027] and [0035]).
Regarding claim 4: Baldwin discloses the limitations of claim 1 above.
Baldwin further discloses: The method of claim 1, wherein the first user’s profile screen comprises a profile picture area and an editable area distinct from the profile picture area, and wherein the poll interface is displayed in the editable area (Baldwin [0025]: A questioning user 105 uses question interface 140 in ask a question to users of social networking system 100. The question interface 140 may be graphically rendered on the social networking system 100 in various locations to encourage users to use the question and answer service. In one embodiment, for example the embodiment of FIG. 6, question interface 140 comprises a dedicated social networking system page. Alternatively, question interface 140 may appear in a portion of another social networking system page, such as in a margin of a user profile. A user may add a tab or a button in a social networking system GUI 130 which may be clicked to display the question interface 140), (see paragraphs [0019], [0025] and [0037]-[0038] and Fig. 9).
Regarding claim 8: Baldwin discloses the limitations of claim 1 above.
Baldwin further discloses: The method of claim 1, further comprising: after receiving the request to post the creation information for the poll and the poll interface, providing notification information associated with posting of the poll interface to a terminal of a user who is a friend with the first user (see paragraphs [0029]-[0030]).
Regarding claim 11: Baldwin discloses the limitations of claim 1 above.
Baldwin further discloses: The method of claim 1, further comprising: when the poll ends, providing notification information associated with the end of the poll to a terminal of at least one user who is a friend with the first user (see paragraphs [0034]-[0035]).
Regarding claim 12: Baldwin discloses the limitations of claim 1 above.
Baldwin further discloses: The method of claim 11, wherein the at least one user who is a friend with the first user is a user who has participated in the poll among users who are friends with the first user (see paragraph [0034]).
Regarding claim 14: Baldwin discloses the limitations of claim 1 above.
Baldwin further discloses: A method for providing a vote feature through a profile screen by a user terminal, comprising:
in response to an interaction to view a poll creator’s profile screen, displaying the poll creator’s profile screen containing a poll interface, wherein the poll interface comprises multiple choices (see paragraphs [0066], [0025], [0027] and [0029]);
receiving a selection interaction indicative of selection of at least one of the multiple choices (see paragraphs [0036] and [0038]); and
displaying selection completion information reflecting the selection interaction (see paragraphs [0043], [0025] and [0037).
Regarding claim 15: Baldwin discloses the limitations of claim 1 above.
Baldwin further discloses: The method of claim 14, wherein the selection completion information is displayed in place of the poll interface on the poll creator’s profile screen (see paragraphs [0043] and [0037]).
Regarding claim 17: Baldwin discloses the limitations of claim 1 above.
Baldwin further discloses: The method of claim 14, further comprising: prior to displaying the poll creator’s profile screen containing the poll interface, displaying notification information associated with the poll interface being posted on the poll creator’s profile screen (see paragraphs [0025] and [0037]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claims 5-7, 16, 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baldwin et al. (US 20160006775 A1, “Baldwin”) Alternatively in view of Michael David Schmitz (US 20170322620 A1, “Schmitz”).
Regarding claim 5: Baldwin discloses the limitations of claim 1 above.
Baldwin further discloses: The method of claim 1, further comprising:
when the poll ends, in response to a request to view the first user’s profile screen from the first user terminal, providing the first user’s profile screen containing the result information of the poll to the first user terminal (see paragraphs [0025], [0035], [0037] and [0043]); and
Examiner’s Note: (Baldwin [0035]: Question interface 140 may allow a questioning user 105 to set an expiration date for questions, after which question interface 140 may remove the question from social networking system 100, or may prevent the question from being voted on or viewed by users. In one embodiment, question interface 140 may automatically assign a question an expiration date), the Examiner considers the “expiration date” of Baldwin to be the “when the poll ends” of the claimed language).
Furthermore, claim 5 recites “when the poll ends, in response to a request to view the first user’s profile screen from the first user terminal, providing the first user’s profile screen containing the result information of the poll to the first user terminal”. This is conditional language limitation. The “in response to a request to view the first user’s profile screen from the first user terminal, providing…” only get performed when the poll ends, but is not performed otherwise. Accordingly, once the positively recited steps are satisfied, the method as a whole is satisfied -- regardless of whether or not other steps are conditionally performed under certain other hypothetical scenarios. (In re Johnston, 77 USPQ2d 1788 (CA FC 2006); Intel Corp. v. Int'l Trade Comm'n, 20 USPQ2d 1161 (Fed. Cir. 1991); See MPEP § 2103 I C).
in response to a request to view details about the result information from the first user terminal, providing voter information about the multiple choices to the first user terminal (see paragraph [0049]),
wherein the voter information about the multiple choices is provided only within a predetermined period after the poll ends (see paragraphs [0035] and [0049]).
As indicated above, Baldwin discloses: when the poll ends, in response to a request to view the first user’s profile screen from the first user terminal, providing the first user’s profile screen containing the result information of the poll to the first user terminal. Alternatively, for Compact Prosecution and clarity purpose, the Examiner cites Schmitz, an analogous art of polling system to specifically disclose, when the poll ends and performing some polling functions.
Alternatively, Schmitz discloses:
[when the poll ends, providing the result information of the poll to the first user terminal] (Schmitz [0025]: When the poll has expired, or the duration of the poll has elapsed, the polling system will query the microblogging system for posts directed to the user (step 160). For example, a query in TWITTER may take the form of a “GET search” where the parameter “q=@usershandle” is passed to the system. The polling system then receives the requested posts from the microblogging system (step 170), and parses the posts to identify those that are responses to the poll (step 175). For polls with answer options, this includes parsing the posts for one of the answer options; [0026] The poll results are calculated based on the aggregate poll responses obtained from both the parsed posts and any other site on which users can respond to the poll (step 178). The polling system then creates another microblog post with the poll results (step 180). The microblog post with the poll results is sent to the microblogging system for posting on the user's account in the microblogging system (step 190). The poll results may be presented textually, graphically (e.g., bar graphs, pie charts, etc.), through audio files, or through a combination of multimedia. In certain embodiments, the second microblog post, including the final poll results, is sent to the microblogging system after the expiration of the poll duration).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Baldwin with Schmitz, a polling system and method is provided for enabling a user to create polls that are posted on a microblogging website and that can be answered on the microblogging website to include the Schmitz polling system functions such as poll expiration time, to enhance poll results and user experience.
Regarding claim 6: Baldwin discloses the limitations of claim 1 above.
Baldwin further discloses: The method of claim 1, further comprising: when the poll ends, in response to a request to view the first user’s profile screen from a terminal of a user who is a friend with the first user, providing the first user’s profile screen containing the result information of the poll to the terminal of the user (see paragraphs [0043], [0028], [0025] and [0037]).
Examiner’s Note: (Baldwin [0035]: Question interface 140 may allow a questioning user 105 to set an expiration date for questions, after which question interface 140 may remove the question from social networking system 100, or may prevent the question from being voted on or viewed by users. In one embodiment, question interface 140 may automatically assign a question an expiration date), the Examiner considers the “expiration date” of Baldwin to be the “when the poll ends” of the claimed language).
Furthermore, claim 6 recites “when the poll ends, in response to a request to view the first user’s profile screen”. This is conditional language limitation. The response to a request to view the first user’s profile screen performed when the poll ends, but is not performed otherwise. Accordingly, once the positively recited steps are satisfied, the method as a whole is satisfied -- regardless of whether or not other steps are conditionally performed under certain other hypothetical scenarios. (In re Johnston, 77 USPQ2d 1788 (CA FC 2006); Intel Corp. v. Int'l Trade Comm'n, 20 USPQ2d 1161 (Fed. Cir. 1991); See MPEP § 2103 I C).
As indicated above, Baldwin discloses: when the poll ends, in response to a request to view the first user’s profile screen from a terminal of a user who is a friend with the first user, providing the first user’s profile screen containing the result information of the poll to the terminal of the user. Alternatively, for Compact Prosecution and clarity purpose, the Examiner cites Schmitz, an analogous art of polling system to specifically disclose, when the poll ends and performing some polling functions.
Alternatively, Schmitz discloses:
[when the poll ends, providing the result information of the poll] (Schmitz [0025]: When the poll has expired, or the duration of the poll has elapsed, the polling system will query the microblogging system for posts directed to the user (step 160). For example, a query in TWITTER may take the form of a “GET search” where the parameter “q=@usershandle” is passed to the system. The polling system then receives the requested posts from the microblogging system (step 170), and parses the posts to identify those that are responses to the poll (step 175). For polls with answer options, this includes parsing the posts for one of the answer options; [0026] The poll results are calculated based on the aggregate poll responses obtained from both the parsed posts and any other site on which users can respond to the poll (step 178). The polling system then creates another microblog post with the poll results (step 180). The microblog post with the poll results is sent to the microblogging system for posting on the user's account in the microblogging system (step 190). The poll results may be presented textually, graphically (e.g., bar graphs, pie charts, etc.), through audio files, or through a combination of multimedia. In certain embodiments, the second microblog post, including the final poll results, is sent to the microblogging system after the expiration of the poll duration).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Baldwin with Schmitz, a polling system and method is provided for enabling a user to create polls that are posted on a microblogging website and that can be answered on the microblogging website to include the Schmitz polling system functions such as poll expiration time, to enhance poll results and user experience.
Regarding claim 7: Baldwin discloses the limitations of claim 1 above.
Baldwin further discloses: The method of claim 1, further comprising:
when the poll ends, in response to a request to view the first user’s profile screen from the second user terminal, providing the first user’s profile screen containing the result information of the poll to the second user terminal (see paragraphs [0025], [0035] and [0037] and Fig. 6); and
when the poll ends, in response to a request to view the first user’s profile screen from a third user terminal that did not participate in the poll, providing the first user terminal not containing the result information of the poll to the third user terminal (see paragraphs [0025], [0035], [0037] and [0077]).
Examiner’s Note: (Baldwin [0035]: Question interface 140 may allow a questioning user 105 to set an expiration date for questions, after which question interface 140 may remove the question from social networking system 100, or may prevent the question from being voted on or viewed by users. In one embodiment, question interface 140 may automatically assign a question an expiration date), the Examiner considers the “expiration date” of Baldwin to be the “when the poll ends” of the claimed language).
Furthermore, claim 7 recites “when the poll ends, in response to a request to view the first user’s profile screen”. This is conditional language limitation. The response to a request to view the first user’s profile screen performed when the poll ends, but is not performed otherwise. Accordingly, once the positively recited steps are satisfied, the method as a whole is satisfied -- regardless of whether or not other steps are conditionally performed under certain other hypothetical scenarios. (In re Johnston, 77 USPQ2d 1788 (CA FC 2006); Intel Corp. v. Int'l Trade Comm'n, 20 USPQ2d 1161 (Fed. Cir. 1991); See MPEP § 2103 I C).
As indicated above, Baldwin discloses: when the poll ends, in response to a request to view the first user’s profile screen from the second user terminal, providing the first user’s profile screen containing the result information of the poll to the second user terminal. Alternatively, for Compact Prosecution and clarity purpose, the Examiner cites Schmitz, an analogous art of polling system to specifically disclose, when the poll ends and performing some polling functions.
Alternatively, Schmitz discloses:
[when the poll ends, providing the result information of the poll] (Schmitz [0025]: When the poll has expired, or the duration of the poll has elapsed, the polling system will query the microblogging system for posts directed to the user (step 160). For example, a query in TWITTER may take the form of a “GET search” where the parameter “q=@usershandle” is passed to the system. The polling system then receives the requested posts from the microblogging system (step 170), and parses the posts to identify those that are responses to the poll (step 175). For polls with answer options, this includes parsing the posts for one of the answer options; [0026] The poll results are calculated based on the aggregate poll responses obtained from both the parsed posts and any other site on which users can respond to the poll (step 178). The polling system then creates another microblog post with the poll results (step 180). The microblog post with the poll results is sent to the microblogging system for posting on the user's account in the microblogging system (step 190). The poll results may be presented textually, graphically (e.g., bar graphs, pie charts, etc.), through audio files, or through a combination of multimedia. In certain embodiments, the second microblog post, including the final poll results, is sent to the microblogging system after the expiration of the poll duration).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Baldwin with Schmitz, a polling system and method is provided for enabling a user to create polls that are posted on a microblogging website and that can be answered on the microblogging website to include the Schmitz polling system functions such as poll expiration time, to enhance poll results and user experience.
Regarding claim 16: Baldwin discloses the limitations of claim 1 above.
Baldwin further discloses: The method of claim 14, further comprising: when the poll ends, in response to an interaction to view the poll creator’s profile screen, displaying the poll creator’s profile screen containing result information of the poll (see paragraphs [0043], [0025] and [0037]).
As indicated above, Baldwin discloses: when the poll ends, in response to an interaction to view the poll creator’s profile screen, displaying the poll creator’s profile screen containing result information of the poll. Alternatively, for Compact Prosecution and clarity purpose, the Examiner cites Schmitz, an analogous art of polling system, to specifically disclose, when the poll ends and performing some polling functions.
Alternatively, Schmitz discloses:
[when the poll ends, displaying the poll creator’s profile screen containing result information of the poll] (Schmitz [0025]: When the poll has expired, or the duration of the poll has elapsed, the polling system will query the microblogging system for posts directed to the user (step 160). For example, a query in TWITTER may take the form of a “GET search” where the parameter “q=@usershandle” is passed to the system. The polling system then receives the requested posts from the microblogging system (step 170), and parses the posts to identify those that are responses to the poll (step 175). For polls with answer options, this includes parsing the posts for one of the answer options; [0026] The poll results are calculated based on the aggregate poll responses obtained from both the parsed posts and any other site on which users can respond to the poll (step 178). The polling system then creates another microblog post with the poll results (step 180). The microblog post with the poll results is sent to the microblogging system for posting on the user's account in the microblogging system (step 190). The poll results may be presented textually, graphically (e.g., bar graphs, pie charts, etc.), through audio files, or through a combination of multimedia. In certain embodiments, the second microblog post, including the final poll results, is sent to the microblogging system after the expiration of the poll duration).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Baldwin with Schmitz, a polling system and method is provided for enabling a user to create polls that are posted on a microblogging website and that can be answered on the microblogging website to include the Schmitz polling system functions such as poll expiration time, to enhance poll results and user experience.
Regarding claim 19: Baldwin discloses the limitations of claim 1 above.
Baldwin further discloses: The method of claim 14, further comprising: when the poll ends, displaying notification information associated with the end of the poll (see paragraphs [0043], [0025] and [0037]).
As indicated above, Baldwin discloses: when the poll ends, in response to an interaction to view the poll creator’s profile screen, displaying the poll creator’s profile screen containing result information of the poll. Alternatively, for Compact Prosecution and clarity purpose, the Examiner cites Schmitz, an analogous art of polling system, to specifically disclose, when the poll ends and performing some polling functions.
Alternatively, Schmitz discloses:
[when the poll ends, displaying the poll creator’s profile screen containing result information of the poll] (Schmitz [0025]: When the poll has expired, or the duration of the poll has elapsed, the polling system will query the microblogging system for posts directed to the user (step 160). For example, a query in TWITTER may take the form of a “GET search” where the parameter “q=@usershandle” is passed to the system. The polling system then receives the requested posts from the microblogging system (step 170), and parses the posts to identify those that are responses to the poll (step 175). For polls with answer options, this includes parsing the posts for one of the answer options; [0026] The poll results are calculated based on the aggregate poll responses obtained from both the parsed posts and any other site on which users can respond to the poll (step 178). The polling system then creates another microblog post with the poll results (step 180). The microblog post with the poll results is sent to the microblogging system for posting on the user's account in the microblogging system (step 190). The poll results may be presented textually, graphically (e.g., bar graphs, pie charts, etc.), through audio files, or through a combination of multimedia. In certain embodiments, the second microblog post, including the final poll results, is sent to the microblogging system after the expiration of the poll duration).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Baldwin with Schmitz, a polling system and method is provided for enabling a user to create polls that are posted on a microblogging website and that can be answered on the microblogging website to include the Schmitz polling system functions such as poll expiration time, to enhance poll results and user experience.
Regarding claim 20: Baldwin discloses the limitations of claim 1 above.
Baldwin further discloses: A method for providing a vote feature through a profile screen by a user terminal, comprising:
providing a server with a request to post creation information for a poll and a poll interface on a user’s profile screen, wherein the creation information comprises at least one a topic of the poll, information on multiple choices, a poll end point, or information on a position and size of the poll interface on the user’s profile screen (see paragraphs [0066], [0025]-[0027] and [0035]);
displaying the user’s profile screen containing the poll interface corresponding to the creation information (see paragraph [0025]);
during the poll, displaying the user’s profile screen containing progress information of the poll in response to an interaction to view the user’s profile screen (see paragraphs [0025], [0037] and [0043]); and
when the poll ends, displaying the user’s profile screen containing result information of the poll in response to an interaction to view the user’s profile screen (see paragraphs [0025], [0037] and [0043]).
Examiner’s Note: (Baldwin [0035]: Question interface 140 may allow a questioning user 105 to set an expiration date for questions, after which question interface 140 may remove the question from social networking system 100, or may prevent the question from being voted on or viewed by users. In one embodiment, question interface 140 may automatically assign a question an expiration date), the Examiner considers the “expiration date” of Baldwin to be the “when the poll ends” of the claimed language).
Furthermore, claim 7 recites “when the poll ends, in response to a request to view the first user’s profile screen”. This is conditional language limitation. The response to a request to view the first user’s profile screen performed when the poll ends, but is not performed otherwise. Accordingly, once the positively recited steps are satisfied, the method as a whole is satisfied -- regardless of whether or not other steps are conditionally performed under certain other hypothetical scenarios. (In re Johnston, 77 USPQ2d 1788 (CA FC 2006); Intel Corp. v. Int'l Trade Comm'n, 20 USPQ2d 1161 (Fed. Cir. 1991); See MPEP § 2103 I C).
As indicated above, Baldwin discloses: when the poll ends, in response to an interaction to view the poll creator’s profile screen, displaying the poll creator’s profile screen containing result information of the poll. Alternatively, for Compact Prosecution and clarity purpose, the Examiner cites Schmitz, an analogous art of polling system, to specifically disclose, when the poll ends and performing some polling functions.
Alternatively, Schmitz discloses:
[when the poll ends, displaying the poll creator’s profile screen containing result information of the poll] (Schmitz [0025]: When the poll has expired, or the duration of the poll has elapsed, the polling system will query the microblogging system for posts directed to the user (step 160). For example, a query in TWITTER may take the form of a “GET search” where the parameter “q=@usershandle” is passed to the system. The polling system then receives the requested posts from the microblogging system (step 170), and parses the posts to identify those that are responses to the poll (step 175). For polls with answer options, this includes parsing the posts for one of the answer options; [0026] The poll results are calculated based on the aggregate poll responses obtained from both the parsed posts and any other site on which users can respond to the poll (step 178). The polling system then creates another microblog post with the poll results (step 180). The microblog post with the poll results is sent to the microblogging system for posting on the user's account in the microblogging system (step 190). The poll results may be presented textually, graphically (e.g., bar graphs, pie charts, etc.), through audio files, or through a combination of multimedia. In certain embodiments, the second microblog post, including the final poll results, is sent to the microblogging system after the expiration of the poll duration).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Baldwin with Schmitz, a polling system and method is provided for enabling a user to create polls that are posted on a microblogging website and that can be answered on the microblogging website to include the Schmitz polling system functions such as poll expiration time, to enhance poll results and user experience.
Claim 9 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baldwin et al. (US 20160006775 A1, “Baldwin”) Alternatively in view of Michael David Schmitz (US 20170322620 A1, “Schmitz”) Alternatively, further in view of JungHo SHIN (US 20130227439 A1, “SHIN”).
Regarding claim 9: Baldwin discloses the limitations of claim 1 above.
Baldwin further discloses: The method of claim 7, wherein the notification information is provided in a form of a profile update notification for the first user (see paragraph [0025] and [0031] and Fig. 3).
As indicated above, Baldwin discloses, [0031]: Question interface 140 may suggest users to tag in a question to questioning user 105. In one embodiment, question interface