The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This Office action is in response to communications filed on 6/27/2024.
Claims 1-18 are pending.
DETAILED ACTION
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1 and 17-18 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 15 of U.S. Patent No. 12,052,477 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because:
Regarding claim 1, all of the limitations recited by claim 1 of the present application are recited or invoked by reference in claim 15 of U.S. Patent No. 12,052,477 B2.
Regarding claims 17-18, the limitations are similar in scope to those of claim 1. However, claim 17 recites “a computer system […] comprising: at least one processor configured to execute computer-readable instructions recorded in a memory” to execute the recited steps and claim 18 recites “A user terminal comprising: at least one processor configured to execute computer-readable instructions recorded in a memory” to execute the recited steps.
Claim 15 of U.S. Patent No. 12,052,477 B2 invokes, by reference, the computer system of claim 1 to perform the recited functions. A computer system inherently includes processors and memory storing instructions to be executed by the processor in order for the computer system to execute the functions.
Therefore, claims 17-18 are similarly rejected in view of claim 15 of U.S. Patent No. 12,052,477 B2.
Claim 16 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 15 of U.S. Patent No. 12,052,477 B2 in view of Broder (US 20120166453 A1).
Regarding claim 16, U.S. Patent No. 12,052,477 B2 discloses the comment management method of claim 1 (U.S. Patent No. 12,052,477 B2, claim 15).
Claim 15 of U.S. Patent No. 12,052,477 B2 does not disclose that the plurality of comments includes a comment written for another comment, and at least one of the first comment and the second comment includes the comment written for the another comment.
Broder discloses the plurality of comments includes a comment written for another comment, and at least one of the first comment and the second comment includes the comment written for the another comment (¶[0023], "Each user comment 140 comprises a commenter name 141, a time the comment was posted 142, a control 143 that allows a user to vote up or down (e.g. like or dislike) on a comment and a link 144 that allows a user to enter a reply to a comment and/or view replies to a comment" - see Fig. 4, the comments include replies).
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 U.S. Patent No. 12,052,477 B2 in view of Broder so that the plurality of comments includes a comment written for another comment, and at least one of the first comment and the second comment includes the comment written for the another comment.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated because it would enhance user experience by being able to read what other people think about a written comment.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-15 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 1 and 17-18 would be allowable by filing a terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) as the prior art of record fails to teach, neither singly nor in combination, the claimed limitations of “selecting at least one first comment from among the plurality of comments based on a first condition that is based on feedback from users for each of the plurality of comments; selecting at least one second comment from among the plurality of comments based on a second condition that is based on a time at which a comment is written for the content and the feedback from the users” combined with “the plurality of comments includes at least one content written when the content is the paid content and at least one content written when the content is the free content” as recited in claim 1 and similarly stated in claim(s) 17-18. These limitations, in conjunction with other limitations in the independent claim(s), are not specifically disclosed or remotely suggested in the prior art of record.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BORIS D GRIJALVA LOBOS whose telephone number is (571)272-0767. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10:30AM to 6:30PM EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Brian Gillis can be reached at 571-272-7952. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/BORIS D GRIJALVA LOBOS/ Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2446