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 .
All objections/rejections not mentioned in this Office Action have been withdrawn by the Examiner.
Status of the Claims
Prior to entry of the amendment(s) and/or consideration of the argument(s), the status of the claims is as follows.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are pending.
Claim(s) 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim(s) 1-2, 5, 14-16 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Um (KR102283232B1, hereinafter Um).
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Um as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Non-patent literature to Min (Min, S., Lewis, M., Hajishirzi, H. and Zettlemoyer, L., 2021. Noisy Channel Language Model Prompting for Few-Shot Text Classification. arXiv preprint arXiv:2108.04106v2, hereinafter Min).
Claim(s) 4 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Um as applied to claims 1 and 15 above, and further in view of Matsuoka (U.S. Pat. App. Pub. No. 2023/0066403, hereinafter Matsuoka).
Claim(s) 6-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Um as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Berger (U.S. Pat. App. Pub. No. 2010/0325112, hereinafter Berger).
Claim(s) 9-11 and 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Um as applied to claim 1 and 15 above, and further in view of Patel (U.S. Pat. App. Pub. No. 2018/0329982, hereinafter Patel).
Claim(s) 12 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Um and Patel as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Stinchcomb (U.S. Pat. App. Pub. No. 2011/0106662, hereinafter Stinchcomb).
Response to Amendments
Applicant’s amendment filed on 06 July 2026 has been entered.
In view of the amendment to the claim(s), the amendment of claim(s) 1, 3, 6-8, 11-12, 14-15, and 20 and the cancellation of claim(s) 2, 4-5, and 16-18 have been acknowledged and entered.
After entry of the amendment, claim(s) 1, 3, 6-15 and 19-20 remain pending.
In view of the amendment to claim(s) 6-8, the rejection of claim(s) 6-8 under 35 U.S.C. §112 is withdrawn.
In view of the amendment of claim(s) 1, 3, 6-8, 11-12, 14-15, and 20 and the cancellation of claim(s) 2, 4-5, and 16-18, the rejection of claims 2, 4-5, and 16-18 under 35 U.S.C. §101 is withdrawn. The rejection(s) of claim(s) 1, 3, 6-8, 11-12, 14-15, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. §101 is/are maintained as modified in response to amendment, for the reasons provided in the action below.
In view of the amendment of claim(s) 1, 3, 6-8, 11-12, 14-15, and 20 and the cancellation of claim(s) 2, 4-5, and 16-18, the rejection of claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. §102 and 103 is withdrawn.
In light of the amended claims, new grounds for rejection under 35 U.S.C. §102 and 35 U.S.C. §103 are provided in the action below.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments regarding the subject matter rejections under 35 U.S.C. §101, see page 6 of the Response to Non-Final Office Action dated 10 April 2026, which was received on 06 July 2026 (hereinafter Response and Office Action, respectively), have been fully considered and are not persuasive.
Regarding claim 1, and mutatis mutandis claims 14-15, applicant argues that “claim 1 has been amended to incorporate the features of claims 2 and 16” and that the claims do not merely describe “reading a chat and mentally classifying its intent.” (Response, pg. 6). Said amendments to claim 1 are substantial and, therefore, the original rejection of claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. §101 is withdrawn.
A revised rejection under 35 U.S.C. §101 directed to claims 1, 3, 6-15 and 19-20 is provided in the response below.
Applicant’s arguments regarding the prior art rejections under 35 U.S.C. §102/103, see pages 6-8 of the Response, have been fully considered.
With respect to the rejection(s) of independent claim(s) 1, 14, and 15 under 35 U.S.C. §102 as being anticipated by Um, applicant asserts that Um fails to teach or suggest all limitations of the claims as amended. Applicant’s arguments are persuasive. As such, the rejections of claims 1, 14, and 15 under 35 U.S.C. §102 are withdrawn.
Applicant further argues that the rejection(s) of dependent claims 3, 6-13 and 19-20 should be withdrawn for at least the same reasons as independent claims 1, 14, and 15. Applicant’s arguments in light of the amended claims are persuasive. As such, the rejections of claims 3, 6-13 and 19-20 under 35 U.S.C. §102 and 35 U.S.C. §103 are withdrawn.
However, upon further consideration, new ground(s) of rejection under 35 U.S.C. §103 are made in light of combinations of Min, Berger, Patel, Stinchcomb, and newly cited reference Trim (U.S. Pat. App. Pub. No. 2020/0177529, hereinafter Trim).
The Applicant has not provided any further statement and therefore, the Examiner directs the Applicant to the below rationale.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 8, and 14-15 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 1, and mutatis mutandis claims 14 and 15, the claim appears to have an additional “and” conjunction, as the steps of the method claim appear to be part of the same list, with no clear sub-list formation.
As written, it is unclear if the limitation of “providing the chat messages…” is part of the claimed method (which would be limiting of the described method) or if the applicant is describing an event which occurs outside of the method (which would only be limiting of the method insofar as it affects the performance of the remaining method steps).
As the additional “and” is believed to be a clerical error, the following proposed amendment, if acceptable to the applicant, would overcome the objection: amending the phrase “using a language model; and” to “using a language model; [[and]]”
Regarding claim 8, the phrase “wherein further comprising” should read as “further comprising”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1, 3, 6-15 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding independent claims 1, 14, and 15, the limitation “a visually recognizable predetermined template” lacks clear specification support such that one skilled in the art would recognize that the applicant had possession of the claimed invention at the time of filing. As applicant does not indicate support in the specification for any of the provided amendments, we review the specification and the claims as filed to find relevant support and determine an intended meaning. However, the phrase “visually recognizable”, and the words “recognizable” and “predetermined” do not occur in the specification or claims as filed. Upon reviewing the specification more broadly, for any words which appear to provide the necessary support, the most relevant support was found at paragraph [0064] which states that “The processor 220 may generate a dedicated prompt template that well reflects characteristics of a given natural language processing (NLP) problem.” However, this section is referring to a prompt template, not to a template which is provided “to an interface screen of a live commerce tool of the host”. Further, even if we ignore the fact that this is a prompt template assume that “dedicated prompt template” may arguably support “predetermined template” the remaining description cannot be properly read as “visually recognizable”. It is further noted that FIGS. 9-11 are directed to the classification template, however, the phrase “visually recognizable” or any equivalent phrase, is not part of the provided description. As such, independent claims 1 and 14-15 contain at least one limitation that lacks specification support and are therefore rejected.
Regarding dependent claims 3, 6-13 and 19-20, claims 3, 6-13 and 19-20 depend from claims 1 and 15, and incorporate all limitations therefrom. Therefore, claims 3, 6-13 and 19-20 are rejected for at least the same reasons as claims 1 and 14-15.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 6-15 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
To determine subject matter eligibility for each of the recited claims above, we turn to the subject matter eligibility test, also referred to as the Alice/Mayo test, described in MPEP 2106. Regarding step 1 of the subject matter eligibility test, we first determine if the claims are directed to a statutory category. The independent claim(s) 1, and mutatis mutandis claim(s) 14 and 15, recite “receiving the plurality of chat messages from the viewers during the live broadcast; classifying, in real time, the chat messages received during the live broadcast into a plurality of categories corresponding to message content using a language model; and analyzing the chat messages in real time based on a classification of the chat messages: and providing the chat messages in real time to an interface screen of a live commerce tool of the host in a visually recognizable predetermined template including the plurality of categories based on the analysis of the chat messages” As the claims recite a process and a machine, the claim is directed to one of the statutory categories under step 1 of the subject matter eligibility test.
In Step 2A of the test, which is a Two Prong analysis, we then determine if the claim is directed to a judicial exception. For Step 2A, Prong One, we first ask if the claim recites an abstract idea, Law of Nature, or Natural Phenomena. Regarding claim(s) 1, 14, and 15, the limitation of “receiving…”, “classifying…”, “analyzing…”, and “providing…”, as drafted cover managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, which is a method of organizing human activity, as described in the context of a mental process. More specifically, the claims describe receiving a plurality of communications from one or more people during a presentation (e.g., a plurality of people, such as potential buyers, talking during a sales pitch, promotional event, or the like). Categorizing the conversations being held into one or more groups based on what each person is saying (e.g., determining topics of conversation for each person and grouping them based on those topics), analyzing those chat messages to determine details about the communication (e.g., emotional state, specific topic remarks, etc. as performed in the normal course of a presentation by an event host, such as through human administrators or monitors of some kind), and providing the categories and analyses to the host (such as, to help the host address concerns, target the further discussion to specific audience members who are more likely to close the deal, or the like), as part of the managing of commercial interactions and communications between a seller (the host) and potential buyers (the viewers) as part of a presentation (e.g., the live broadcast). Therefore, the claims are directed to mental processes and human activity, and, thus, directed to an abstract idea which is a judicial exception.
In Step 2A, Prong Two of the analysis, we next determine if the claim recites additional elements which integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The judicial exception recited in claims 1, 14, and 15 is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, claim(s) 1, 14, and 15 recite additional elements of a “transmitted through a communications network”, “classifying …using a language model”, “providing the chat messages… to an interface screen”, as per the independent claims. Regarding “transmitted through a communications network,” the computer device and all components thereof are general-purpose computer components which are not meaningfully integrated into the practical application of the abstract ideas recited in claim(s) 1, 14, and 15. The communications network is a generic component for communication with a computer device is described in the context of a medium through which the chat messages are “transmitted”. Communications network, as integrated in and implemented through the computer device, are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., a black box description which indicates a single high level function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computing device and/or a generic computer component.
Regarding the “classifying …using a language model”, both the “classifying” and the “language model” are described at such a high level of abstraction, that each merely provide a technological environment for the abstract idea to be performed. The claim recites classifying message content using a language model which is the performance of the above described human activity, using the language model as a platform for the human activity. Regarding “providing the chat messages… to an interface screen”, the claim is reciting insignificant extra-solution activity. Providing the results of a solution to the host using an “interface screen”, understood as being a monitor or screen used in the ordinary course of using a computing device of any kind, is the mere presentation of an existing solution, as performed by the aforementioned human activity. Adding insignificant post-solution steps (such as printing a report, displaying a final result on a screen, or storing said data) cannot integrate the mental step or human activity into a patent-eligible process. Accordingly, the additional elements fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Regarding Step 2B of the analysis, we next determine if the claim recites additional elements which amount to substantially more than the judicial exception. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a “processor,” a “memory,” or “computer readable instructions” to perform the classification of chat messages amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computing device or general purpose computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. (See Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank, 573 U.S. 208, 221, 223, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1982-84 (2014) (quoting Mayo Collaborative Servs. V. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 72, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1965). Further, “merely identifying a user interface” with relation to determinations which “can be performed in the human mind or using a pencil and paper” has been deemed insufficient to render otherwise abstract claims as non-abstract, where the court further indicated that the resulting device, system and/or method was “still missing” an “improved structure or function.” See Broadband iTV, Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 113 F.4th 1359, 1367-68 (Fed. Cir. 2024). The court has consistently held that “[s]teps that do nothing more than spell out what it means to ‘apply it on a computer’ cannot confer patent-eligibility.” Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1371-72 (Fed.Cir. 2015)(citing Alice, 134 S.Ct. at 2359 (warning against a § 101 analysis that turns on the draftsman's art (citing Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 593, 98 S.Ct. 2522, 57 L.Ed.2d 451 (1978))).
Therefore, and in light of the preceding analysis, the claims do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. For these reasons, claims 1, 14, and 15 are not patent eligible.
With respect to claim(s) 3, the claim relates to generating categories for the classification based on examples, using prompts to a language model. As performed by a person, these steps appear to refer to the mental process of using categories as applied to known examples for the previously described classification, as performed in a well-known technological environment (e.g., a language model). No additional limitation is present.
With respect to claim(s) 6, the claims relate to the analysis including positive and negative reaction rates. As performed by a person, these steps appear to refer to the mental process of restricting the analysis to a determination of positive or negative sentiment, as well as determining trends of the same (which are typically done mentally or mathematically). No additional limitation is present.
With respect to claim(s) 7, the claims relate to a specified format for the analysis results. As performed by a person, these steps appear to refer to the administrative process of formatting the results of the mental process to include highlighting. No additional limitation is present.
With respect to claim(s) 8, the claims relate to storing and analyzing a specific message related to a product. As performed by a person, these steps appear to refer to the mental and clerical process of selecting a message based on a predetermined criteria and performing a related analysis. No additional limitation is present.
With respect to claim(s) 9 and 19, the claims relate to responding to a question within the classified messages. As performed by a person, these steps appear to refer to the mental process of providing a response to a question in a specific category. No additional limitation is present.
With respect to claim(s) 10, the claims relate to generating responses from a dataset provided by the host. As performed by a person, these steps appear to refer to the mental process of answering questions based on known answers. No additional limitation is present.
With respect to claim(s) 11 and 20, the claims relate to alternative sources of information for an answer provided to a question. As performed by a person, these steps appear to refer to the mental process of using an information source (e.g., frequently asked questions, a library, etc.) to find an answer to a question. No additional limitation is present.
With respect to claim(s) 12, the claims relate to posting answers alongside questions in a publicly available format. As performed by a person, these steps appear to refer to the mental and clerical process of determining an answer to a question and providing that answer publicly (e.g., posted on a corkboard in a public space for attendees of the event). No additional limitation is present.
With respect to claim(s) 13, the claims relate to providing a question which couldn’t be answered to a secondary site. As performed by a person, these steps appear to refer to the mental and clerical process of determining a question could not be answered based on available information and handing the question to a second person.. No additional limitation is present.
These claims further do not remedy the judicial exception being integrated into a practical application and further fail to include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As such, for the same reasons as described above with reference to independent claim(s) 1, 14, and 15, dependent claim(s) 3, 6-13 and 19-20 are not patent eligible.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, and 14-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Trim.
Regarding claim 1, Trim discloses A method, executed by a computer device having at least one processor, for processing a plurality of chat messages transmitted through a communication network from a plurality of viewers during a live broadcast associated with a host, the method comprising (Systems and methods for “Contextual program 200 ... to classify chat and presentation content” which may be “a system, a method, and/or a computer program product at any possible technical detail level of integration” and “may include a computer readable storage medium (or media) having computer readable program instructions thereon for causing a processor to carry out aspects of the present invention,” where the processor is part of a computer device; Trim, ¶ [0024], [0057]): receiving the plurality of chat messages from the viewers during the live broadcast (Discloses receiving “a segment of a live stream that includes video data and live chat content” where the live chat content comprises a plurality of “comments of users on the live stream of the broadcaster.”; Trim, ¶ [0021], [0028]); classifying, in real time, the chat messages received during the live broadcast into a plurality of categories corresponding to message content (“contextual program 200 determines a classification of comments within chat content of the presentation,” where the classification is performed in real-time.; Trim, ¶ [0014], [0030]) using a language model (The “contextual program 200 utilizes NLP {a language model} to determine a classification of unstructured written text of chat content”; Trim, ¶ [0030]); and analyzing the chat messages in real time based on a classification of the chat messages (“contextual program 200 identifies {analyzing…} comments within the chat content that correlate to the classification of the presentation content,” where the analysis is based on a “current classification” of the messages “that match the current classification of the presentation content” as performed during an ongoing presentation; Trim, ¶ [0032]): and providing the chat messages in real time to an interface screen of a live commerce tool of the host (“contextual program 200 can send a notification to presenter device 140 that includes contextually relevant comments” such as “a notification to a broadcaster of a livestream, which includes a comment that is relevant to the content that the broadcaster is currently presenting.”; Trim, ¶ [0024]) in a visually recognizable predetermined template including the plurality of categories (“contextual program 200 parses (e.g., NLP) live chat content to determine a topic (e.g., classification) of a comment of a user” and “contextual program 200 displays comments... that are contextually relevant... to a current topic of the live stream broadcast” which may be part of “a subset of chat content to display with the presentation content” which is sent as a “notification to presenter device 140 that includes contextually relevant comments,” where visually recognizable describes all visual elements, and the notification to the presenter device including contextually relevant comments is a predetermined template, and the presentation includes the plurality of topics/classifications (e.g., a threshold value for topic similarity indicates numerous topics).; Trim, ¶ [0024], [0034], [0042]) based on the analysis of the chat messages (The above presentation, thresholding, and classification are all based on the analysis of the chat messages.; Trim, ¶ [0024], [0034], [0042]).
Regarding claim 14, Trim discloses A non-transitory computer-readable recording medium storing a computer program (Systems and methods for “Contextual program 200 ... to classify chat and presentation content” which may be “a system, a method, and/or a computer program product at any possible technical detail level of integration” and “may include a computer readable storage medium (or media) having computer readable program instructions thereon for causing a processor to carry out aspects of the present invention,” where the processor is part of a computer device; Trim, ¶ [0024], [0057]) for executing the method of claim 1 on a computer device (See mapping of claim 1 with respect to Trim, presented above).
Regarding claim 15, Trim discloses A computer device for processing a plurality of chat messages transmitted through a communication network from a plurality of viewers during a live broadcast associated with a host, comprising: at least one processor configured to execute computer-readable instructions included in a memory, wherein the at least one processor is configured to execute the steps (Systems and methods for “Contextual program 200 ... to classify chat and presentation content” which may be “a system, a method, and/or a computer program product at any possible technical detail level of integration” and “may include a computer readable storage medium (or media) having computer readable program instructions thereon for causing a processor to carry out aspects of the present invention,” where the processor is part of a computer device; Trim, ¶ [0024], [0057]) including: receiving the plurality of chat messages from the viewers during the live broadcast (Discloses receiving “a segment of a live stream that includes video data and live chat content” where the live chat content comprises a plurality of “comments of users on the live stream of the broadcaster.”; Trim, ¶ [0021], [0028]); classifying, in real time, the chat messages received during the live broadcast into a plurality of categories corresponding to message content (“contextual program 200 determines a classification of comments within chat content of the presentation,” where the classification is performed in real-time.; Trim, ¶ [0014], [0030]) using a language model (The “contextual program 200 utilizes NLP {a language model} to determine a classification of unstructured written text of chat content”; Trim, ¶ [0030]); and analyzing the chat messages in real time based on a classification of the chat messages (“contextual program 200 identifies {analyzing…} comments within the chat content that correlate to the classification of the presentation content,” where the analysis is based on a “current classification” of the messages “that match the current classification of the presentation content” as performed during an ongoing presentation; Trim, ¶ [0032]): and providing the chat messages in real time to an interface screen of a live commerce tool of the host (“contextual program 200 can send a notification to presenter device 140 that includes contextually relevant comments” such as “a notification to a broadcaster of a livestream, which includes a comment that is relevant to the content that the broadcaster is currently presenting.”; Trim, ¶ [0024]) in a visually recognizable predetermined template including the plurality of categories (“contextual program 200 parses (e.g., NLP) live chat content to determine a topic (e.g., classification) of a comment of a user” and “contextual program 200 displays comments... that are contextually relevant... to a current topic of the live stream broadcast” which may be part of “a subset of chat content to display with the presentation content” which is sent as a “notification to presenter device 140 that includes contextually relevant comments,” where visually recognizable describes all visual elements, and the notification to the presenter device including contextually relevant comments is a predetermined template, and the presentation includes the plurality of topics/classifications (e.g., a threshold value for topic similarity indicates numerous topics).; Trim, ¶ [0024], [0034], [0042]) based on the analysis of the chat messages (The above presentation, thresholding, and classification are all based on the analysis of the chat messages.; Trim, ¶ [0024], [0034], [0042]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Trim as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Non-patent literature to Min (Min, S., Lewis, M., Hajishirzi, H. and Zettlemoyer, L., 2021. Noisy Channel Language Model Prompting for Few-Shot Text Classification. arXiv preprint arXiv:2108.04106v2, hereinafter Min).
Regarding claim 3, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Trim discloses all of the elements of the current invention as stated above. However, Trim fails to expressly recite wherein the classifying of the chat messages comprises: constructing a prompt for a target message using example data that includes a message example and a category of the message example; and generating a category of the target message according to a pattern of the example data by using the prompt as input to a language model.
Min teaches systems and methods of few-shot learning for text classification. (Min, ¶ Abstract). Regarding claim 3, Min teaches wherein the classifying of the chat messages comprises: constructing a prompt for a target message using example data that includes a message example and a category of the message example (“if the task is sentiment analysis with C = {c+,c−}, an example input text x would be ‘A three-hour cinema master class’” and “In a few-shot setup, we are also given a set of K training examples D={(x1,c1),···,(xK,cK)},” where “X is the set of all natural language texts and C = {c1...cm} is a set of labels.”; Min, ¶ p. 3, col. 1, lines 1-4; col. 2, lines 1-6); and generating a category of the target message according to a pattern of the example data by using the prompt as input to the language model (The “key idea is to prepend a concatenation of K training examples to the input so that a language model can learn the task setup from the input.” Thus, as the input includes K training examples with the set of labels corresponding to the category and the corresponding natural language texts, the example input text X will receive a generated category for the example input text X, according to the pattern established by the K training examples.; Min, ¶ p. 3 col. 2, lines 18-28).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the live commerce broadcasting systems of Trim to incorporate the teachings of Min to include wherein the classifying of the chat messages comprises: constructing a prompt for a target message using example data that includes a message example and a category of the message example; and generating a category of the target message according to a pattern of the example data by using the prompt as input to a language model. Trim discloses automated classification of comments and messages using a language model as part of a live presentation interface. However, Trim is silent regarding the construction of a prompt with example data for said classification. Min teaches a few-shot learning method for text classification where a prompt is constructed using concatenated examples of text and their corresponding categories, which is then received by the language model. The incorporation of the few-shot learning method of Min would allow the live commerce chat classifier of Trim to adapt to new, custom classification categories dynamically, without the costs or time constraints required for retraining or fine-tuning the underlying language model, as understood in light of the disclosure of Min. (Min, ¶ Abstract; pg. 2, col. 2, lines 5-22).
Claim(s) 6-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Trim as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Berger (U.S. Pat. App. Pub. No. 2010/0325112, hereinafter Berger).
Regarding claim 6, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Trim discloses all of the elements of the current invention as stated above. However, Trim fails to expressly recite wherein the plurality of categories in the predetermined template includes positive and negative reaction rates.
Berger teaches an electronic message management system for categorizing messages based on intent. (Berger, ¶ [0002], [0018]). Regarding claim 6, Berger teaches wherein the plurality of categories in the predetermined template includes positive and negative reaction rates (“An overall intent positiveness identification is performed at 46” which includes grouping based on at least “(1) expression of a positive opinion” and “(2) expression of a negative opinion” {positive and negative reaction...} and that “partitioned and grouped messages may be displayed” as “talkboards 74,” which can “include various bars 76 that represent a percentile {rates...} relating to a particular grouping {based on the classification results of the chat message...}.”; Berger, ¶ [0022], [0026]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the live stream contextual classification systems of Trim to incorporate the teachings of Berger to include wherein the plurality of categories in the predetermined template includes positive and negative reaction rates. Berger provides an electronic message management system which can visualize groups of categorized messages based on the proportion or rate of users expressing a specific sentiment, which may further be related to one or more products, which provides the known benefit of allowing a live streaming host, such as disclosed in Trim, further insight into how the topic of the event (e.g., a product) is being received by the audience in real time, such that the host can adjust or respond dynamically during the live event, capitalize on discovered insights, and address specific problems or issues during the event, as understood in light of the disclosure of Berger. (Berger, ¶ [0002], [0006], [0022]).
Regarding claim 7, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Trim discloses all of the elements of the current invention as stated above. However, Trim fail(s) to expressly recite wherein the plurality of categories in the predetermined template includes highlighted information related to a specific classification item.
The relevance of Berger is described above with relation to claim 6. Regarding claim 7, Berger teaches wherein the plurality of categories in the predetermined template includes highlighted information related to a specific classification item (Discloses “The talkboards 74 include various bars 76 that represent a percentile relating to a particular grouping” and “the larger the bar 76 the more senders of messages incorporated a particular feature in their respective messages,” where the system can provide further subcategorization information based on user selection of the category level groupings. As described with reference to an example, when the user selects the “coffee-latte” and “water-bottle” bars 76, the system presents “in the first column, all intentions (bars) related to bar coffee-latte and the bar water-bottle as well as in third column all bars representing if those groups of people gave an explanation, contradiction, etc.” which is highlighted information related to the specific classification item, and where all subclassification data and related information is necessarily derived from the groupings of the messages 22 (e.g., explanations related to “coffee-latte” necessarily derive from and incorporate the grouping of “coffee latte”, etc.), thus related to a specific classification item; Berger, ¶ [0021]-[0022], [0026]-[0028]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the live stream contextual classification systems of Trim to incorporate the teachings of Berger to include wherein the plurality of categories in the predetermined template includes highlighted information related to a specific classification item. Berger provides an electronic message management system which can visualize groups of categorized messages based on the proportion or rate of users expressing a specific sentiment, which may further be related to one or more products, which provides the known benefit of allowing a live streaming host, such as disclosed in Trim, further insight into how the commerce-based event is being received by the audience in real time, such that the host can adjust or respond dynamically during the live event, capitalize on discovered insights, and address specific problems or issues during the event, as understood in light of the disclosure of Berger. (Berger, ¶ [0002], [0006], [0022]).
Examiner note regarding claim 7: The phrase “specific classification item” appears to implicitly reference a group (e.g., “a group of classification items) from which the specific classification item might be drawn. However, as the claims as currently presented do not recite other “classification items”, the limitation “a specific classification item” is not currently interpreted to have such membership. If applicant intends for the word “specific” to distinguish membership of a group of items, applicant is advised that the claims should be amended such that a group of classification items is expressly recited, in light of specification support for the same, and the specific classification item is drawn from that group.
Regarding claim 8, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Trim discloses all of the elements of the current invention as stated above. However, Trim fail(s) to expressly recite wherein further comprising storing a chat message of a specific category, and the chat message of the specific category is used as analysis data related to a product of the host.
The relevance of Berger is described above with relation to claim 6. Regarding claim 8, Berger teaches wherein further comprising storing a chat message of a specific category (“The electronic device 104 receives messages at 124. Those messages are stored 126 in the memory 108 {storing a message of a specific classification item...}” and the “control unit 106 partitions the messages at 128” where the “partitioning of the messages divides the messages, as is discussed in greater detail above, into segments having similar elements. {...based on the classification results of the chat messages}”; Berger, ¶ [0035]), and the chat message of the specific category is used as analysis data related to a product of the host (Though Berger fails to expressly recite a host related to the product, the system includes the analysis of message data with relation to specified products (e.g., “coffee latte” or “water bottle”), which as applied to the host in Trim, would be understood as analysis data related to a topic of the host when performed with relation to the discussion topic for the live streaming system of Trim, where the product can be a subject or topic of a live stream event; Berger, ¶ [0035]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the live stream contextual classification systems of Trim to incorporate the teachings of Berger to include wherein further comprising storing a chat message of a specific category, and the chat message of the specific category is used as analysis data related to a product of the host. Berger provides an electronic message management system which can visualize groups of categorized messages based on the proportion or rate of users expressing a specific sentiment, which may further be related to one or more products, which provides the known benefit of allowing a live commerce host, such as disclosed in Trim, further insight into how the commerce-based event is being received by the audience in real time, such that the host can adjust or respond dynamically during the live event, capitalize on discovered insights, and address specific problems or issues during the event, as understood in light of the disclosure of Berger. (Berger, ¶ [0002], [0006], [0022]).
Claim(s) 9-11 and 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Trim as applied to claim 1 and 15 above, and further in view of Patel (U.S. Pat. App. Pub. No. 2018/0329982, hereinafter Patel).
Regarding claim 9, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Trim discloses all of the elements of the current invention as stated above. However, Trim fails to expressly recite further comprising providing an automatic response to an inquiry message classified into an inquiry category among the chat messages using the function of the live commerce tool.
Patel teaches systems and methods for “providing intelligent response suggestions to messages including unstructured natural language information.” (Patel, ¶ [0002]). Regarding claim 9, Patel teaches further comprising providing an automatic response to an inquiry message classified into an inquiry category among the chat messages using the function of the live commerce tool (Discloses a “digital assistant 800” including “a natural language analyzer 820, a query evaluator 840, a predicted response evaluator 860, and a predicted response generator 880” which “can receive one or more messages 802 that include unstructured natural language information” which may be a query {an inquiry message} classified in “the category of generic queries {classified into an inquiry category}” and the “query category can be associated with a plurality of sets of candidate predicted responses” which is applied to modify the presenter device of Trim using the chat messages described therein. {using the function of the live commerce tool}; Patel, ¶ [0248], [0251], [0256], [0258]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the live stream contextual classification systems of Trim to incorporate the teachings of Patel to include further comprising providing an automatic response to an inquiry message classified into an inquiry category among the chat messages using the function of the live commerce tool. The intelligent messaging systems of Patel can receive incoming messages and classify them into query categories for the automatic provision of a predicted response, which would be understood as a natural modification of the live streaming systems of Trim to achieve the benefit of automatically triaging and answering expected viewer inquiries (e.g., shipping costs, standard product information, etc.) during a live broadcast, which reduces the host’s cognitive load and allows them to focus on the presentation and/or more nuanced questions in a fast moving chat, as recognized in the context of the disclosure of Patel. (Patel, ¶ [0004], [0006]).
Regarding claim 10, the rejection of claim 9 is incorporated. Trim discloses all of the elements of the current invention as stated above. However, Trim fail(s) to expressly recite wherein the automatic response is provided based on a response dataset provided in advance by the host.
The relevance of Patel is described above with relation to claim 9. Regarding claim 10, Patel teaches wherein the automatic response is provided based on a response dataset (“a query category can be associated with a plurality of sets of candidate predicted responses” where “after digital assistant 800 receives message 802C... it can provide one set of predicted responses, from the plurality of sets of candidate predicted responses”; Patel, ¶ [0257]) provided in advance by the host (Discloses deriving the plurality of sets from “stored messages” which can be “messages collected from the past conversations” as well as based on elicited “additional input,” received “via a natural language dialogue or other user interfaces upon request by DA server 106” and “the stored messages in first contexts 1002 can include at least one query corresponding to one or more query categories.” In the context of Trim, the elicited “additional input” is understood to come from the host {provided in advance by the host}.; Patel, ¶ [0085], [0261]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the live stream contextual classification systems of Trim to incorporate the teachings of Patel to include wherein the automatic response is provided based on a response dataset provided in advance by the host. The intelligent messaging systems of Patel can receive incoming messages and classify them into query categories for the automatic provision of a predicted response, which would be understood as a natural modification of the live streaming systems of Trim to achieve the benefit of automatically triaging and answering expected viewer inquiries (e.g., shipping costs, standard product information, etc.) during a live broadcast, which reduces the host’s cognitive load and allows them to focus on the presentation and/or more nuanced questions in a fast moving chat, as recognized in the context of the disclosure of Patel. (Patel, ¶ [0004], [0006]).
Regarding claim 11, the rejection of claim 9 is incorporated. Trim discloses all of the elements of the current invention as stated above. However, Trim fail(s) to expressly recite wherein the automatic response is provided based on at least one of the product of the host information, a dataset converted from the voice of the host through speech to text (STT), and a dataset accumulated from the previous broadcast of the host.
The relevance of Patel is described above with relation to claim 9. Regarding claim 11, Patel teaches wherein the automatic response is provided based on at least one of the product of the host information, a dataset converted from the voice of the host through speech to text (STT), and a dataset accumulated from the previous broadcast of the host (the plurality of sets of candidate predicted responses being derived from “stored messages” which can be “messages collected from the past conversations” as well as based on elicited “additional input,” received “via a natural language dialogue or other user interfaces upon request by DA server 106” and “based on the unstructured natural language information contained in messages 802, natural language analyzer 820 obtains unstructured natural language texts and determines token sequences according to semantics, syntax, and/or punctuation marks associated with the unstructured natural language texts” and “can perform speech-to-text conversion to obtain texts (e.g., token sequences)”; Patel, ¶ [0085], [0249], [0257], [0261]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the live stream contextual classification systems of Trim to incorporate the teachings of Patel to include wherein the automatic response is provided based on at least one of the product of the host information, a dataset converted from the voice of the host through speech to text (STT), and a dataset accumulated from the previous broadcast of the host. The intelligent messaging systems of Patel can receive incoming messages and classify them into query categories for the automatic provision of a predicted response, which would be understood as a natural modification of the live commerce systems of Trim to achieve the benefit of automatically triaging and answering expected viewer inquiries (e.g., shipping costs, standard product information, etc.) during a live broadcast, which reduces the host’s cognitive load and allows them to focus on the presentation and/or more nuanced questions in a fast moving chat, as recognized in the context of the disclosure of Patel. (Patel, ¶ [0004], [0006]).
Regarding claim 19, the rejection of claim 15 is incorporated. Claim 19 is substantially the same as claim 9 and is therefore rejected under the same rationale as above.
Regarding claim 20, the rejection of claim 19 is incorporated. Claim 20 is substantially the same as claim 11 and is therefore rejected under the same rationale as above.
Claim(s) 12 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Trim and Patel as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Stinchcomb (U.S. Pat. App. Pub. No. 2011/0106662, hereinafter Stinchcomb).
Regarding claim 12, the rejection of claim 9 is incorporated. Trim and Patel disclose all of the elements of the current invention as stated above. However, Trim fails to expressly recite wherein the providing of the automatic response comprises automatically posting an inquiry and a corresponding response to a bulletin board related to the product of the host for the inquiry message to which the automatic response was successfully generated.
Stinchcomb teaches an interactive online shopping platform with a dedicated question queue. (Stinchcomb, ¶ [0006], [0024]). Regarding claim 12, Stinchcomb teaches wherein the providing of the automatic response comprises automatically posting an inquiry and a corresponding response to a bulletin board related to the product of the host for the inquiry message to which the automatic response was successfully generated (“FIG. 14 illustrates a question queue 425 that may be accessed by an event moderator, host, or administrator. The question queue may list questions, the username of the member who submitted the question, and an amount of time that had elapsed since the question was posted. The event moderator, host, or administrator may have the option to answer questions in the queue by posting an answer that is viewable to all members participating in the event, if they feel the question is directed to something all in the room might wish to know,” where the location receiving the posted question and answer that is “viewable to all members” is the bulletin board, and the answer was successfully generated as explained with reference to Patel in claim 9 (where said generation occurred); Stinchcomb, ¶ [0192], FIG. 14).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the live commerce broadcasting systems of Trim, as modified by the automated response systems of Patel, to incorporate the teachings of Stinchcomb to include wherein the providing of the automatic response comprises automatically posting an inquiry and a corresponding response to a bulletin board related to the product of the host for the inquiry message to which the automatic response was successfully generated. The combination of Trim and Patel teaches a live commerce system that automatically generates responses to chat inquiries. However, the combination of Trim and Patel fail to disclose a specified location for receipt of questions, as opposed to general chat discussions. The dedicated “question queue” of Stinchcomb, which Stinchcomb distinguishes from the general chat feed, provides for both a specified location for questions to be answered by the automated question answering systems of Patel, and possible pinning of the question and answer pairs, based on expected value to the audience, resulting in both a more accessible format for question answering, and reduced question answering load due to the availability of a bulletin board for questions of general value to the audience, as recognized by Stinchcomb. (Stinchcomb, ¶ [0192]).
Regarding claim 13, the rejection of claim 12 is incorporated. Trim and Patel disclose all of the elements of the current invention as stated above. However, Trim fail(s) to expressly recite wherein the providing of the automatic response comprises providing the inquiry message to which a generation of the automatic response has failed through a separate interface.
The relevance of Patel is described above with relation to claim 9. Regarding claim 13, Patel teaches wherein the providing of the automatic response comprises providing the inquiry message to which a generation of the automatic response has failed through a separate interface (“When a respective event recognizer 280 determines that the series of sub-events do not match any of the events in event definitions 286, the respective event recognizer 280 enters an event impossible, event failed, or event ended state”; Patel, ¶ [0146]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the live commerce broadcasting systems of Trim to incorporate the teachings of Patel to include wherein the providing of the automatic response comprises providing the inquiry message to which a generation of the automatic response has failed. The intelligent messaging systems of Patel can receive incoming messages and classify them into query categories for the automatic provision of a predicted response, which would be understood as a natural modification of the live commerce systems of Trim to achieve the benefit of automatically triaging and answering expected viewer inquiries (e.g., shipping costs, standard product information, etc.) during a live broadcast, which reduces the host’s cognitive load and allows them to focus on the presentation and/or more nuanced questions in a fast moving chat, as recognized in the context of the disclosure of Patel. (Patel, ¶ [0004], [0006]). However, Trim and Patel fail(s) to expressly recite providing the inquiry message...through a separate interface.
The relevance of Stinchcomb is described above with relation to claim 12. Regarding claim 13, Stinchcomb teaches providing the inquiry message...through a separate interface (“FIG. 14 illustrates a question queue 425 that may be accessed by an event moderator, host, or administrator. The question queue may list questions, the username of the member who submitted the question, and an amount of time that had elapsed since the question was posted” where the question queue is a separate interface from the chat window (e.g., as described in the context of a chat room); Stinchcomb, ¶ [0074], [0192], FIG. 14).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the live commerce broadcasting systems of Trim, as modified by the automated response systems of Patel, to incorporate the teachings of Stinchcomb to include providing the inquiry message...through a separate interface. The combination of Trim and Patel teaches a live commerce system that automatically generates responses to chat inquiries. However, the combination of Trim and Patel fail to disclose a specified location for receipt of questions, as opposed to general chat discussions. The dedicated “question queue” of Stinchcomb, which Stinchcomb distinguishes from the general chat feed, provides for both a specified location for questions to be answered by the automated question answering systems of Patel, and possible pinning of the question and answer pairs, based on expected value to the audience described in Stinchcomb and Trim, resulting in both a more accessible format for question answering, and reduced question answering load due to the availability of a bulletin board for questions of general value to the audience, as recognized by Stinchcomb. (Stinchcomb, ¶ [0192]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Kumar (U.S. Pat. No. 9984338) discloses systems and methods for e-commerce customer support activities are provided via an analytics server, which provides real-time information concerning customer visits to an e-commerce Web site to a merchant that operates the Web site, for example via a dashboard or other user interface.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Sean E. Serraguard whose telephone number is (313)446-6627. The examiner can normally be reached 07:00-17:00 M-F.
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, Daniel C. Washburn can be reached at (571) 272-5551. 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.
/Sean E Serraguard/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2657
Prosecution Insights