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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on April 20, 2026 has been entered.
Claim Status
Claims 1-2, 4-5, 7-10, 12-13, 15-17 and 19 are rejected. Claims 1-20 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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) 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
Maurer et al., Pub. No.: US 20240176960 (Hereinafter “Maurer”) in view of Jin et al. Pub. No.: 20250158940 (Hereinafter “Jin”).
Regarding Claim 1, Maurer discloses a method comprising:
receiving, by a processing device of a content sharing platform, an indication of a selection of a user interface (UI) element associated with a comment posted, by a user, to a live streamed media item on the content on the content sharing platform (see paragraphs [0037], [0039], [0087]);
generating a reply window for the comment (see paragraphs [0087], [0098] - [0016]);
providing, as input to an artificial intelligence (AI) model (see paragraphs [0038], [0089]),
Maurer fails to disclose:
providing, as input to an artificial intelligence (AI) model, a prompt to cause the AI model to generate a reply to the comment, wherein the prompt comprises data related to the live-streamed media item;
receiving an output of the artificial intelligence (AI) model; and
pre-filling, based on the output, the reply window with a reply associated with the comment.
In analogous art, Jin teaches:
providing, as input to an artificial intelligence (AI) model, a prompt to cause the AI model to generate a reply to the comment, wherein the prompt comprises data related to the live-streamed media item (see abstract, paragraphs [0052], [0066]);
receiving an output of the artificial intelligence (AI) model item (see abstract, paragraphs [0022],[0058]); and
pre-filling, based on the output, the reply window with a reply associated with the comment item (see paragraph [0071]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Maurer with the teaching as taught by Jin in order to generate contextually relevant comments tailored to specific media posts. The present disclosure identifies and addresses shortcomings in the art regarding intelligent generation of contextual replies to shared media content
Regarding Claim 2, Maurer in view of Jin discloses the method as discussed in the rejection of claim 1. Maurer further discloses wherein the output comprises a link to a certain timestamp associated with the live streamed media item (see paragraph [0142]).
Regarding Claim 3, Maurer in view of Jin discloses the method as discussed in the rejection of claim 1. Jin further discloses retraining the AI model based on the reply (see abstract, paragraphs [0052], [0066]).
Regarding Claim 4, Maurer in view of Jin discloses the method as discussed in the rejection of claim 3. Maurer in further discloses wherein the reply comprises one or more edits of a channel owner associated with the live streamed media item (see paragraphs [0073], [0086]).
Regarding Claim 5, Maurer in view of Jin discloses the method as discussed in the rejection of claim 1. Maurer further discloses wherein the comment is identified in response to a channel owner associated with the live streamed media item selecting a button associated with the comment (see paragraphs [0073], [0086]).
Regarding Claim 6, Maurer in view of Jin discloses the method as discussed in the rejection of claim 1. Jin further discloses wherein the comment is identified in response to a user posting the comment (see abstract, paragraphs [0052], [0066]).
Regarding Claim 7, Maurer in view of Jin discloses the method as discussed in the rejection of claim 1. Jin further discloses wherein the comment is identified in response to a user joining a live stream or in response to a user posting a message in a chat associated with the live stream (see abstract, paragraphs [0052], [0066]).
Regarding Claim 8, Maurer in view of Jin the method as discussed in the rejection of claim 1. Maurer further discloses wherein the AI model is trained using a plurality of media items posted on a channel associated with the live streamed media item (see paragraph [0138]).
Regarding Claim 9, Maurer in view of Jin disclose a system comprising: a memory (see fig.17: system memory and storage 202); and a processing device (see fig. 17 :Microprocessor 201), coupled to the memory, the processing device (see paragraph [0073]) to perform operations as discussed in the rejection of claim 1.
Regarding Claim 10, the claim is being analyzed with the rejection of claim 2.
Regarding Claim 11, the claim is being analyzed with the rejection of claim 3.
Regarding Claim 12, the claim is being analyzed with the rejection of claim 4.
Regarding Claim 13, the claim is being analyzed with the rejection of claim 5.
Regarding Claim 14, the claim is being analyzed with the rejection of claim 6.
Regarding Claim 15, the claim is being analyzed with the rejection of claim 7.
Regarding Claim 16, the claim is being analyzed with the rejection of claim 8.
Regarding Claim 17, the claim is directed toward embody the method of claim 1 in a “non-transitory computer readable medium”.
Regarding Claim 18, the claim is directed toward embody the method of claim 3 in a “non-transitory computer readable medium”.
Regarding Claim 19, the claim is directed toward embody the method of claim 5 in a “non-transitory computer readable medium”.
Regarding Claim 20, the claim is directed toward embody the method of claim 6 in a “non-transitory computer readable medium”.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Alazar Tilahun whose telephone number is (571)270-5712. The examiner can normally be reached Monday -Friday, From 9:00 AM-6:00 PM.
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, Benjamin Bruckart can be reached at 517-272-3982. 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.
/ALAZAR TILAHUN/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2424
/A.T/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2424
Prosecution Insights