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 .
Claims 1 – 20 have been examined and are pending.
Drawings
The applicant’s submitted drawings on 06/18/2024 are acceptable for examination purposes.
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 (mental process) without significantly more. Each of the independent claims recites steps that result in: organizing and displaying information — an abstract idea — with only conventional UI/computer recitations added.
The preamble states a comment display method, an electronic device comprising one or more processors and a memory, and a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium comprising instructions executed by a processor of an electronic device, all of which is a general-purpose computer and still invokes 101 under the right circumstances. These one or more processors in communication with memory devices appears to be general purpose computer with no significantly more specialized elements.
All of the recited steps are processes that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers the limitations under the organized human activity – mental processes (MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III). That is, other than reciting “processor and memory electrically connected to the processor” nothing in the claim element precludes the concepts performed in the human mind (including determining information, matching identification, and obtaining (or fetching) the associated bill at the address) away from organizing human activity.)
The claim features above as drafted, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, are certain methods of mental processes performed by generic computer components. That is, other than reciting comment display method, an electronic device comprising one or more processors and a memory, and a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium comprising instructions executed by a processor of an electronic device, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being a method of mental process (thinking) that can be performed by a human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper. As the Federal Circuit explained, “methods which can be performed mentally, or which are the equivalent of human mental work, are unpatentable abstract ideas the ‘basic tools of scientific and technological work’ that are open to all.’” 654 F.3d at 1371, 99 USPQ2d at 1694 (citing Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 175 USPQ 673 (1972)). See also Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs. Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 71, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1965 (2012) (“[M]ental processes and abstract intellectual concepts are not patentable, as they are the basic tools of scientific and technological work” (quoting Benson, 409 U.S. at 67, 175 USPQ at 675)); Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 589, 198 USPQ 193, 197 (1978) (same).
The courts do not distinguish between mental processes that are performed entirely in the human mind and mental processes that require a human to use a physical aid (e.g., pen and paper or a slide rule) to perform the claim limitation. See, e.g., Benson, 409 U.S. at 67, 65, 175 USPQ at 674-75, 674 (noting that the claimed “conversion of [binary-coded decimal] numerals to pure binary numerals can be done mentally,” i.e., “as a person would do it by head and hand.”); Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp., 839 F.3d 1138, 1139, 120 USPQ2d 1473, 1474 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (holding that claims to a mental process of “translating a functional description of a logic circuit into a hardware component description of the logic circuit” are directed to an abstract idea, because the claims “read on an individual performing the claimed steps mentally or with pencil and paper”).
Nor do the courts distinguish between claims that recite mental processes performed by humans and claims that recite mental processes performed on a computer. As the Federal Circuit has explained, “[c]ourts have examined claims that required the use of a computer and still found that the underlying, patent-ineligible invention could be performed via pen and paper or in a person’s mind.” Versata Dev. Group v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1335, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1702 (Fed. Cir. 2015). See also Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1318, 120 USPQ2d 1353, 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (‘‘[W]ith the exception of generic computer-implemented steps, there is nothing in the claims themselves that foreclose them from being performed by a human, mentally or with pen and paper.’’); Mortgage Grader, Inc. v. First Choice Loan Servs. Inc., 811 F.3d 1314, 1324, 117 USPQ2d 1693, 1699 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (holding that computer-implemented method for "anonymous loan shopping" was an abstract idea because it could be "performed by humans without a computer"). Mental processes recited in claims that require computers are explained further below with respect to point C.
Claims can recite a mental process even if they are claimed as being performed on a computer. The Supreme Court recognized this in Benson, determining that a mathematical algorithm for converting binary coded decimal to pure binary within a computer’s shift register was an abstract idea. The Court concluded that the algorithm could be performed purely mentally even though the claimed procedures “can be carried out in existing computers long in use, no new machinery being necessary.” 409 U.S at 67, 175 USPQ at 675. See also Mortgage Grader, 811 F.3d at 1324, 117 USPQ2d at 1699 (concluding that concept of “anonymous loan shopping” recited in a computer system claim is an abstract idea because it could be “performed by humans without a computer”).
1. Performing a mental process on a generic computer. An example of a case identifying a mental process performed on a generic computer as an abstract idea is Voter Verified, Inc. v. Election Systems & Software, LLC, 887 F.3d 1376, 1385, 126 USPQ2d 1498, 1504 (Fed. Cir. 2018). In this case, the Federal Circuit relied upon the specification in explaining that the claimed steps of voting, verifying the vote, and submitting the vote for tabulation are “human cognitive actions” that humans have performed for hundreds of years. The claims therefore recited an abstract idea, despite the fact that the claimed voting steps were performed on a computer. 887 F.3d at 1385, 126 USPQ2d at 1504. Another example is Versata, in which the patentee claimed a system and method for determining a price of a product offered to a purchasing organization that was implemented using general purpose computer hardware. 793 F.3d at 1312-13, 1331, 115 USPQ2d at 1685, 1699. The Federal Circuit acknowledged that the claims were performed on a generic computer, but still described the claims as “directed to the abstract idea of determining a price, using organizational and product group hierarchies, in the same way that the claims in Alice were directed to the abstract idea of intermediated settlement, and the claims in Bilski were directed to the abstract idea of risk hedging.” 793 F.3d at 1333; 115 USPQ2d at 1700-01.
2. Performing a mental process in a computer environment. An example of a case identifying a mental process performed in a computer environment as an abstract idea is Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d at 1316-18, 120 USPQ2d at 1360. In this case, the Federal Circuit relied upon the specification when explaining that the claimed electronic post office, which recited limitations describing how the system would receive, screen and distribute email on a computer network, was analogous to how a person decides whether to read or dispose of a particular piece of mail and that “with the exception of generic computer-implemented steps, there is nothing in the claims themselves that foreclose them from being performed by a human, mentally or with pen and paper”. 838 F.3d at 1318, 120 USPQ2d at 1360. Another example is FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Sys., Inc., 839 F.3d 1089, 120 USPQ2d 1293 (Fed. Cir. 2016). The patentee in FairWarning claimed a system and method of detecting fraud and/or misuse in a computer environment, in which information regarding accesses of a patient’s personal health information was analyzed according to one of several rules (i.e., related to accesses in excess of a specific volume, accesses during a pre-determined time interval, or accesses by a specific user) to determine if the activity indicates improper access. 839 F.3d. at 1092, 120 USPQ2d at 1294. The court determined that these claims were directed to a mental process of detecting misuse, and that the claimed rules here were “the same questions (though perhaps phrased with different words) that humans in analogous situations detecting fraud have asked for decades, if not centuries.” 839 F.3d. at 1094-95, 120 USPQ2d at 1296.
3. Using a computer as a tool to perform a mental process. An example of a case in which a computer was used as a tool to perform a mental process is Mortgage Grader, 811 F.3d. at 1324, 117 USPQ2d at 1699. The patentee in Mortgage Grader claimed a computer-implemented system for enabling borrowers to anonymously shop for loan packages offered by a plurality of lenders, comprising a database that stores loan package data from the lenders, and a computer system providing an interface and a grading module. The interface prompts a borrower to enter personal information, which the grading module uses to calculate the borrower’s credit grading, and allows the borrower to identify and compare loan packages in the database using the credit grading. 811 F.3d. at 1318, 117 USPQ2d at 1695. The Federal Circuit determined that these claims were directed to the concept of “anonymous loan shopping”, which was a concept that could be “performed by humans without a computer.” 811 F.3d. at 1324, 117 USPQ2d at 1699. Another example is Berkheimer v. HP, Inc., 881 F.3d 1360, 125 USPQ2d 1649 (Fed. Cir. 2018), in which the patentee claimed methods for parsing and evaluating data using a computer processing system. The Federal Circuit determined that these claims were directed to mental processes of parsing and comparing data, because the steps were recited at a high level of generality and merely used computers as a tool to perform the processes. 881 F.3d at 1366, 125 USPQ2d at 1652-53.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites few additional elements: comment display method, an electronic device comprising one or more processors and a memory, and a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium comprising instructions executed by a processor of an electronic device. The processor in communication with a memory comprises a general-purpose computer, and is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions in memory and executed by a processor to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
"[A]fter determining that a claim is directed to a judicial exception, 'we then ask, [w]hat else is there in the claims before us?"' MPEP 2106.05 (emphasis in MPEP) citing Mayo, 566 U.S. at 78. "What is needed is an inventive concept in the non-abstract application realm." SAP Inc. v. lnvestPic, LLV, Appeal No. 2017-2081 (Fed. Cir. 2018). For step two, the examiner must "determine whether the claims do significantly more than simply describe [the] abstract method" and thus transform the abstract idea into patent-eligible subject matter. Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hutu, LLC, 772 F.3d 709 (Fed. Cir. 2014).
A primary consideration when determining whether a claim recites "significantly more" than abstract idea is whether the additional element(s) are well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry. See MPEP 2106.0S{d). "If the additional element (or combination of elements) is a specific limitation other than what is well- understood, routine and conventional in the field, for instance because it is an unconventional step that confines the claim to a particular useful application of the judicial exception, then this consideration favors eligibility. If, however, the additional element {or combination of elements) is no more than well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, which is recited at a high level of generality, then this consideration does not favor eligibility." Id.
The Federal Circuit has held that "[w]hether something is well-understood, routine, and conventional to a skilled artisan at the time of the patent is a factual determination." Bahr, Robert (April 19, 2018). Changes in Examination Procedure Pertaining to Subject Matter Eligibility, Recent Subject Matter Eligibility Decision (Berkheimer v. HP, Inc.) citing Berkheimer at 1369. "As set forth in MPEP 2106.05(d)(I), an examiner should conclude that an element (or combination of elements) represents well-understood, routine, conventional activity only when the examiner can readily conclude that the element(s) is widely prevalent or in common use in the relevant industry. This memo clarifies that such a conclusion must be based upon a factual determination that is supported as discussed in section III [of the memo]." Berkheimer Memo at 3 (emphasis in memo).
Generally, "[i]f a patent uses generic computer components (computing device) to implement an invention, it fails to recite an inventive concept under Alice step two." West View Research v. Audi, CAFC Appeal Nos. 2016-1947-51 (Fed. Cir. 04/19/2017) citing Mortg. Grader, Inc. v. First Choice Loan Servs. Inc., 811 F.3d 1314, 1324-25 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (explaining that "generic computer components such as an 'interface,' 'network,' and 'database' ... do not satisfy the inventive concept requirement"; but see Bascom (finding that an inventive concept may be found in the non-conventional and non-generic arrangement of the generic computer components, i.e., the installation of a filtering tool at a specific location, remote from the end- users, with customizable filtering features specific to each end user).
In accordance with the above guidance, the examiner has searched the claim(s) to determine whether there are any "additional elements" in the claims that constitute "inventive concept," thereby rendering the claims eligible for patenting even if they are directed to an abstract idea. Alice, 134 S. Ct. 2347 (2014). Those "additional features" must be more than "well understood, routine, conventional activity." See Alice. To note, "under the Mayo/Alice framework, a claim directed to a newly discovered ... abstract idea [] cannot rely on the novelty of that discovery for the inventive concept necessary for patent eligibility." Genetic Techs. Ltd v. Merial LLC, 818 F.3d 1369, 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 188-89 (1981).
As an example, the Federal Circuit has indicated that "inventive concept" can be found where the claims indicate the technological steps that are undertaken to overcome the stated problem(s) identified in Applicant's originally-filed Specification. See Trading Techs. Inc. v. CQG, Inc., No. 2016-1616 (Fed. Cir. 2017); but see IV v. Erie Indemnity, No. 2016-1128 (Fed. Cir. March 7, 2017) ("The claims are not focused on how usage of the XML tags alters the database in a way that leads to an improvement in technology of computer databases, as in Enfish.") (emphasis in original) and IV. v. Capital One, Nos. 2016-1077 (Fed. Cir. March 7, 2017) ("Indeed, the claim language here provides only a result-oriented solution, with insufficient detail for how a computer accomplishes it. Our law demands more. See Elec. Power Grp., 830 F.3d 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cautioning against claims 'so result focused, so functional, as to effectively cover any solution to an identified problem.')"). Furthermore, "[a]bstraction is avoided or overcome when a proposed new application or computer-implemented function is not simply the generalized use of a computer as a tool to conduct a known or obvious process, but instead is an improvement to the capability of the system as a whole." Trading Techs. Int'l, Inc. v. CQG, Inc., No. 2016-1616 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (emphasis added).
In the search for inventive concept, the Berkheimer Memo describes "an additional element (or combination of elements) is not well-understood, routine or conventional unless the examiner finds, and expressly supports a rejection in writing with, one or more of the following:
A citation to an express statement in the specification or to a statement made by an applicant during prosecution that demonstrates the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of the additional element(s).
A citation to one or more of the court decisions discussed in the MPEP as noting the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of the additional element(s).
A citation to a publication that demonstrates the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of the additional element(s).
A statement that the examiner is taking official notice of the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of the additional element(s).
See Berkheimer Memo at 3-4.
As set forth in MPEP § 2106.0S(d)(I), an examiner should conclude that an element (or combination of elements) represents well-understood, routine, conventional activity only when the examiner can readily conclude that the element(s) is widely prevalent or in common use in the relevant industry. The Berkhiemer memo clarifies that such a conclusion must be based upon a factual determination that is supported as discussed in section III the memo.
In this case, the additional elements do not integrate the judicial application into a practical application. The claim does not recite (i) an improvement to the functionality of a computer or other technology or technical field; (ii) a particular machine to apply or use the judicial exception; (iii) a particular transformation of an article to a different thing or state; or (iv) any other meaningful limitation.
The additional elements beyond the judicial exception comment display area, an electronic device comprising one or more processors and a memory, and a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium comprising instructions executed by a processor of an electronic device, which is merely applying the judicial exception using a generic computing component. Additionally, the claim does not improve the functioning of the system, or other technology or field.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 1 – 8 and 10 - 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent Application US Patent Application Publication No. 2009/0164484 to Horowitz et al. (hereinafter Horowitz), and in view of US Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0286484 to Geller et al. (hereinafter Geller).
Claim 1, Horowitz discloses (¶1) system to create interactive commentary over a network in connection with an audio, video or other multimedia broadcast, where users can configure a filter that controls display of the interactive commentary, and further it discloses:
displaying a comment display area of a video work, wherein a plurality of comments on the video work are displayed in the comment display area (Horowitz discloses (¶33–¶37, Fig. 3) displaying a video or multimedia stream together with a plurality of comments submitted by users in a comment display area i.e. interface showing video with associated comments.)
blocking comments that do not belong to a first category from the comment display area, wherein the first category is a category represented by the first category label (Horowitz discloses filtering/blocking comments using comment filter engine (¶18-¶20) which controls the display of comments. The comments are filtered by selecting (Fig. 5:513) one or more tags, keywords, political leanings, location, age, or other attributes relating to the comments.)
However, Horowitz does not explicitly disclose adding to the comment display area and displaying a first category label in the comment display area in response to a label adding operation. However, in an analogous art, Geller teaches:
adding to the comment display area and displaying a first category label in the comment display area in response to a label adding operation (Geller teaches (Fig. 6) displaying a comment entry panel 602 superimposed over video player window 510 and comprising a plurality of comment type tabs 604, comment text field 608 and taxonomy category selector 610. Geller adds category labels (¶53,¶60,¶66) through a taxonomy association engine and a taxonomy selector UI that allows users to add and display category labels).
It would have been obvious as of the effective filing date to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine displaying a comment display area of a video work, wherein a plurality of comments on the video work are displayed in the comment display area, blocking comments that do not belong to a first category from the comment display area, wherein the first category is a category represented by the first category label, as disclosed by Horowitz, and adding to the comment display area and displaying a first category label in the comment display area in response to a label adding operation, as taught by Geller, for the purpose of implementing improved techniques for association of annotations with both categories and tags in a taxonomy, and related search and organization operations (¶2).
Claim 2, Horowitz in view of Geller discloses all the elements of claim 1. Further, they teach:
displaying a label adding interface in response to the label adding operation (Geller teaches in (Figs. 3A and 3B) a graphical user interface configured to display and receive the subject tags for a video using the Tags panel 310 (i.e. label adding interface) and then selecting the subject label 322) wherein the label adding interface displays a plurality of preset category labels (Geller teaches (¶53) permitted categories are stored in storage 108. These permitted categories correspond to preset labels from the category library, which exist in storage but are not yet displayed in the comment display area until selected) and a plurality of history category labels (Geller teaches (¶112) the system uses automated logic to identify all the categories from categories list 1206 that were previous entered and assigned to the comments in the video. These previously entered and assigned categories correspond to history labels added by the logged-in account) the plurality of preset category labels are category labels in a category label library that are not displayed in the comment display area (Geller teaches (¶53) the permitted categories stored in storage 108, and these permitted categories correspond to preset labels from the category library, which exist in storage but are not yet displayed in the comment display area until selected), and the plurality of history category labels are category labels that have been added by a currently logged-in account (Geller teaches (¶86, Fig. 6) the logged-in user desire to enter the comment, and the system uses automated logic to identify all the categories from categories list 1206 that were previously entered and assigned to the comments in the video) and
displaying, in response to a selection operation on at least one category label displayed on the label adding interface (Geller teaches (¶88) the taxonomy category selector 610 is configured to receive user input selecting a particular category from the taxonomy that was specified for the video), the at least one category label as the first category label in the comment display area (Geller teaches (¶79 and Fig. 5) the comment types are Questions, Suggestions, Strengths, Notes, and their particular distinctive appearance is color, i.e. they are associated respectively with orange, green, blue, and yellow, and the comment type value (¶92) may be displayed using a distinctive color appearance.)
The motivation to combine the references is similar to the reasons in Claim 1.
Claim 3, Horowitz in view of Geller discloses all the elements of claim 2. Further, they teach:
wherein the label adding interface further displays a label creation area which is configured to create a category label (Geller teaches (¶87) the user may select a different one of the tabs 604 to change a comment type with which the comment will be selected)
and wherein the method further comprises:
acquiring a label name and label description information input in the label creation area in response to an input operation in the label creation area, wherein the label description information describes a category label to be created (Geller teaches (¶60) user adds metadata about a particular video and a taxonomy and/or category may be specified at the time that the user enters a comment of specifies the input data)
and displaying the first category label having a name of the label name and matching the label description information in the comment display area based on the label name and the label description information (Geller teaches (¶92) displaying the new comment 704 with taxonomy tag 712 shown in the interface. Further, Geller teaches (¶71-¶72 and Fig. 4B) GUI to display labeling a video with a label/group name. Further, Geller teaches (Fig. 5) the comment display area, and (Fig. 15) the color indicates the comment type along with the word/label description (i.e. Questions, Suggestion, Notes).
The motivation to combine the references is similar to the reasons in Claim 1.
Claim 4, Horowitz in view of Geller discloses all the elements of claim 3. Further, they teach:
blocking comments other than the first comment from the comment display area (Horowitz ¶54-¶55) discloses the filter engine controls the display such that only comments matching the selected attributes are shown …. Non-matching comments are suppressed from the display. This is the blocking step, comments outside the first category are excluded)
semantically recognizing the label name and the label description information to acquire the first category (Geller teaches (¶88) the taxonomy category selector 610 may be configured to display a taxonomy that is hierarchical, providing the benefit of associating both a comment type and a taxonomy category with a particular comment)
determining a first comment from the plurality of comments displayed in the comment display area based on the first category, wherein the first comment belongs to the first category (Geller teaches (¶112) the system uses automated logic to identify all the categories from categories list 1206 that was previously entered and assigned to the comments in the video. This is the determination step: comments are associated with categories and the system identifies which comment belongs to the specified first category. Here, semantic recognition means not just treating the label as raw text, but analyzing its meaning, relationships and descriptive context to place it into the right category.)
The motivation to combine the references is similar to the reasons in Claim 1.
Claim 10, Horowitz in view of Geller discloses all the elements of claim 1. Further, they teach:
determining a comment belonging to a second category from the plurality of comments on the video work in response to a trigger operation on a second category label displayed in the comment display area (Geller teaches (¶88) in some embodiments, the taxonomy category selector 610 allows a user to select a category label, in response to the selection, comments associated with that taxonomy category are identified from the comment set)
wherein the second category label is any category label displayed in the comment display area, and the second category is a category represented by the second category label (Geller teaches (¶88) the displayed category labels corresponds to taxonomy categories, and the selection of a label corresponds to the category represented by that label)
and displaying a comment belonging to the second category in the comment display area (Geller teaches (¶89) upon selection of a category label, the interface displays only those comments belonging to the selected category in the comment display area (Geller ¶113). This approach provides a powerful way to rapidly visualize all individual users who have discussed or commented upon a video without sifting through, filtering or sorting all the comments to determine the set of unique users who have commented.)
The motivation to combine the references is similar to the reasons in Claim 1.
Claim 11, Horowitz in view of Geller discloses all the elements of claim 10. Further, they teach:
wherein the displaying the comment belonging to the second category in the comment display area comprises: determining a display style associated with the second category label in response to the trigger operation on the second category label (Geller teaches (¶90) in some embodiments, each taxonomy category label may have an associated visual style; upon user selection of the label, the corresponding style is applied to the display of comments for the category)
and displaying the comment belonging to the second category in the comment display area in the display style associated with the second category label (Geller teaches (¶52, ¶102) for example, comments in a selected category may be rendered with a color scheme, font style, or iconography associated with the category label to visually indicate the classification.)
The motivation to combine the references is similar to the reasons in Claim 1.
Claim 13, do not teach or further define over the limitations in Claim 1. Therefore, claim 13 is rejected for the same rationale of rejection as set forth in Claim 1.
Claim 14, do not teach or further define over the limitations in Claim 2. Therefore, claim 14 is rejected for the same rationale of rejection as set forth in Claim 2.
Claim 15, do not teach or further define over the limitations in Claim 3. Therefore, claim 15 is rejected for the same rationale of rejection as set forth in Claim 3.
Claim 16, do not teach or further define over the limitations in Claim 4. Therefore, claim 16 is rejected for the same rationale of rejection as set forth in Claim 4.
Claim 20, do not teach or further define over the limitations in Claim 1. Therefore, claim 20 is rejected for the same rationale of rejection as set forth in Claim 1.
Claims 5, 6, 17 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent Application US Patent Application Publication No. 2009/0164484 to Horowitz, in view of US Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0286484 to Geller and in view of US Patent Application Publication No. 2016/0092771 to Buckley et al. (hereinafter Buckley).
Claim 5, Horowitz in view of Geller discloses all the elements of claim 1. However, Horowitz in view of Geller does not explicitly disclose displaying a plurality of keywords in the comment display area based on a label name of the first category label, in response to a trigger operation on the first category label; determining a second comment from the plurality of comments displayed in the comment display area in response to a selection operation on at least one keyword, wherein a correlation degree between the second comment and the at least one keyword is greater than a correlation degree threshold; and blocking comments other than the second comment from the comment display area. However, in an analogous art, Buckley teaches:
displaying a plurality of keywords in the comment display area based on a label name of the first category label, in response to a trigger operation on the first category label (Buckley (Fig. 3: 315) teaches a plurality of hotwords in the Tweet comments display area);
determining a second comment from the plurality of comments displayed in the comment display area in response to a selection operation on at least one keyword (Buckley teaches in (Fig. 3: 310) a keyword listing in the dashboard UI that displays multiple keywords associated with a brand/social media context, and it vary in size depending on the frequency), wherein a correlation degree between the second comment and the at least one keyword is greater than a correlation degree threshold (Buckley teaches (Fig. 2: 212) message analysis program determines a relevancy score that indicates a correlation (¶43) and compares the determined relevancy scores for social media messages to a threshold condition between social media messages and keywords of brand and provides the determined user as recommendations) and
blocking comments other than the second comment from the comment display area (Buckley teaches (¶33) message analysis program 200 filters out social media messages that include promotional content or other non-authentic social media user messages.)
It would have been obvious as of the effective filing date to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine displaying a comment display area of a video work, wherein a plurality of comments on the video work are displayed in the comment display area; adding to the comment display area and displaying a first category label in the comment display area in response to a label adding operation; and blocking comments that do not belong to a first category from the comment display area, wherein the first category is a category represented by the first category label, as disclosed by Horowitz in view of Geller, and displaying a plurality of keywords in the comment display area based on a label name of the first category label, in response to a trigger operation on the first category label; determining a second comment from the plurality of comments displayed in the comment display area in response to a selection operation on at least one keyword, wherein a correlation degree between the second comment and the at least one keyword is greater than a correlation degree threshold; and blocking comments other than the second comment from the comment display area, as taught by Buckley, for the purpose of implementing method and system for analyzing social media messages (¶4).
Claim 6, Horowitz in view of Geller discloses all the elements of claim 2. Further, they teach:
determining a third comment from the plurality of comments displayed in the comment display area based on a history comment associated with the first category label in response to a trigger operation on the first category label (Geller teaches (¶112) the system uses automated logic to identify all the categories from categories list 1206 that were previously entered and assigned to the comments in the video. This corresponds to using prior (history) comments associated with category labels to drive subsequent filtering when the label is triggered)
in a case that the first category label is a preset category label or a history category label, wherein the history comment is a comment belonging to the first category in a comment display area of another video work (Geller teaches (¶112) categories list 1206 automatically indicates all categories … which have been associated with the video in comments that were previously entered and specified a category using taxonomy category selector 610. This is direct support for history comments: categories already assigned to prior comments (in other sessions or works) are reused)
Horowitz in view of Geller does not explicitly disclose and a similarity between the third comment and the history comment is greater than a similarity threshold and blocking comments other than the third comment from the comment display area. However, in an analogous art, Buckley teaches:
and a similarity Buckley teaches (Fig. 2: 212) message analysis program determines a relevancy score that indicates a similarity correlation (¶43) for social media messages) between the third comment and the history comment is greater than a similarity threshold (Buckley teaches (¶48) a history of the choices is maintained (e.g., in storage device 155) and used to build a model with relevancy scores for social media messages together with a threshold condition between social media messages and keywords of brand to predict and provides the user recommendations) and blocking comments other than the third comment from the comment display area (Buckley teaches (¶33) message analysis program 200 filters out social media messages that include promotional content or other non-authentic social media user messages.)
The motivation to combine the references is similar to the reasons in Claim 5.
Claim 17, do not teach or further define over the limitations in Claim 5. Therefore, claim 17 is rejected for the same rationale of rejection as set forth in Claim 5.
Claim 18, do not teach or further define over the limitations in Claim 6. Therefore, claim 18 is rejected for the same rationale of rejection as set forth in Claim 6.
Claims 7, 8, 12 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent Application US Patent Application Publication No. 2009/0164484 to Horowitz, in view of US Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0286484 to Geller and in view of US Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0329331 to Felman.
Claim 7, Horowitz in view of Geller discloses all the elements of claim 1. However, Horowitz in view of Geller does not explicitly disclose updating a type of the first category label from a private label type to a public label type, in a case that a number of target accounts is greater than a number threshold, wherein the target accounts are accounts that have added the first category label in the comment display area, and the public label type indicates that a category label is visible to all accounts viewing the video work. However, in an analogous art, Felman teaches:
updating a type of the first category label from a private label type to a public label type in a case that a number of target accounts is greater than a number threshold, wherein the target accounts are accounts that have added the first category label in the comment display area (Felman (¶47 - ¶49) teaches “disclosure information” i.e. information shared only if conditions are met (e.g. keyword match, similarity of activity, correlations with history, engagement metrics, thresholds etc.) the classification interface allow users to create and/or assign various conditions to user information such that more information will be disclosed to one or more other users upon the occurrence of the associated disclosure condition. These conditions relate to user's activity, time-based disclosure conditions, location(s) of the user, content, keywords or tags associated with the user information, and/or a monetary or point value system. When disclosure conditions are met, the information may be disclosed to one or more other users during a disclosure process, upon the occurrence of the associated condition i.e. updating private to public category), and the public label type indicates that a category label is visible to all accounts viewing the video work (Felman teaches watching a video (¶41) and (¶45) user information associated with a user's account may be automatically and/or manually classified as “private information” (i.e., information that is not to be shared with others); “public information” (i.e., information that is automatically shared with others).
It would have been obvious as of the effective filing date to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine displaying a comment display area of a video work, wherein a plurality of comments on the video work are displayed in the comment display area; adding to the comment display area and displaying a first category label in the comment display area in response to a label adding operation; and blocking comments that do not belong to a first category from the comment display area, wherein the first category is a category represented by the first category label, as disclosed by Horowitz in view of Geller, and updating a type of the first category label from a private label type to a public label type, in a case that a number of target accounts is greater than a number threshold, wherein the target accounts are accounts that have added the first category label in the comment display area, and the public label type indicates that a category label is visible to all accounts viewing the video work, as taught by Norwood, for the purpose of implementing method and system for use by web site operators to facilitate user posting of public and private comments at a web site (¶2).
Claim 8, Horowitz in view of Geller in view of Felman discloses all the elements of claim 7. Further, they teach:
displaying at least one of avatars or usernames of the target accounts (Felman teaches User 1, User 2, User ‘n’ information marked as public is shared with all users of the system (¶45-¶47 and Fig. 4). This directly corresponds to the public label visible to all users’ limitations) in a target display style (Felman discloses visual distinctions in the UI when disclosure conditions are met, e.g. when information becomes public, its presentation changes in the system (¶45-¶46).
in response to the type of the first category label being updated to the public label type (Felman teaches (¶45-¶49) that user information initially private may become public when a disclosure condition is satisfied, at which point it is shared with all users. The update in state (private to public) provides the trigger for the system’s change in display style.)
wherein the target display style is configured to indicate that category labels added by the target accounts are updated to the public label type (Felman teaches (¶46-¶49) the transition of information into public visibility and that the system reflects such changes at the UI level. This corresponds to indicating that the labels/comments tied to target accounts are now grow “public”).
The motivation to combine the references is similar to the reasons in Claim 7.
Claim 12, Horowitz in view of Geller discloses all the elements of claim 1. Further, they teach:
adjusting a display order of category labels in a comment display area of a next video work (Felman reference teaches adaptive display management of content and information visibility based on conditions and prior interactions (¶47–¶49). That includes ordering/selection logic for what is shown next to a user) based on an interaction of a currently logged-in account with each of category labels displayed in the comment display area (Felman discloses that user activity and engagement with items (comments/content) is tracked and used as a disclosure condition for altering what is presented (¶47-¶49) wherein the interaction is an interaction with a comment belonging to a category represented by the first category label (Felman discloses that interaction with specific content items (like comments tied to a tab/category) informs whether related content or attributes are promoted/reshown (¶47-¶49.)
The motivation to combine the references is similar to the reasons in Claim 7.
Claim 19, do not teach or further define over the limitations in Claim 7. Therefore, claim 19 is rejected for the same rationale of rejection as set forth in Claim 7.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent Application US Patent Application Publication No. 2009/0164484 to Horowitz, in view of US Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0286484 to Geller and in view of US Patent Application Publication No. 2017/0142044 to Ball et al. (hereinafter Ball).
Claim 9, Horowitz in view of Geller discloses all the elements of claim 1. However, Horowitz in view of Geller does not explicitly disclose preprocessing the comment to acquire a preprocessed comment, wherein the preprocessing is to remove punctuation, special symbols, and blank symbols from the comment; performing a word segmentation on the preprocessed comment to acquire a word segmentation result, wherein the word segmentation result comprises a plurality of keywords appearing in the preprocessed comment; performing a sentiment polarity analysis on the preprocessed comment to acquire a sentiment polarity of the comment, wherein the sentiment polarity is positive, negative or neutral; and categorizing the comment based on the word segmentation result and the sentiment polarity of the comment to acquire a category of the comment. However, in an analogous art, Ball teaches:
preprocessing the comment to acquire a preprocessed comment, wherein the preprocessing is to remove punctuation, special symbols, and blank symbols from the comment (Ball teaches (¶80-¶85) the text is normalized by removing punctuations, extraneous symbols, and other noise characteristics prior to further analysis)
performing a word segmentation on the preprocessed comment to acquire a word segmentation result, wherein the word segmentation result comprises a plurality of keywords appearing in the preprocessed comment (Ball teaches (¶80-¶85) the normalized text is tokenized into individual words or phrases which may be treated as keywords for subsequent classification)
performing a sentiment polarity analysis on the preprocessed comment to acquire a sentiment polarity of the comment, wherein the sentiment polarity is positive, negative or neutral (Ball teaches (¶129) sentiment polarity is determined for each comment, with polarity values being positive, negative, or neutral)
and categorizing the comment based on the word segmentation result and the sentiment polarity of the comment to acquire a category of the comment (Ball teaches (¶8-¶9) comments are classified into categories based on extracted keyword features and sentiment polarity values, including categories such as spam, constructive, promotional, positive feedback, or negative feedback.)
It would have been obvious as of the effective filing date to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine displaying a comment display area of a video work, wherein a plurality of comments on the video work are displayed in the comment display area; adding to the comment display area and displaying a first category label in the comment display area in response to a label adding operation; and blocking comments that do not belong to a first category from the comment display area, wherein the first category is a category represented by the first category label, as disclosed by Horowitz in view of Geller, and preprocessing the comment to acquire a preprocessed comment, wherein the preprocessing is to remove punctuation, special symbols, and blank symbols from the comment; performing a word segmentation on the preprocessed comment to acquire a word segmentation result, wherein the word segmentation result comprises a plurality of keywords appearing in the preprocessed comment; performing a sentiment polarity analysis on the preprocessed comment to acquire a sentiment polarity of the comment, wherein the sentiment polarity is positive, negative or neutral; and categorizing the comment based on the word segmentation result and the sentiment polarity of the comment to acquire a category of the comment, as taught by Ball, for the purpose of implementing ranking and filtering content items in a social-networking environment (¶1).
Conclusion
Citation of Pertinent Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2015/0304269 to Keerthi at al. (System and Method)
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HASSAN KHAN whose telephone number is (313) 446-6574 and fax number is (571) 483-7559. The examiner can normally be reached on MONDAY - THURSDAY.
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:/Awww.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor Christopher L. Parry can be reached on (571) 272-8328. 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:/Awww.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.
/H. A. K./
Examiner, Art Unit 2451
/Chris Parry/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2451
Prosecution Insights