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 .
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 § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 1, 9 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "a reply window" in line 9. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "a reply window" in line 12. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 17 recites the limitation "a reply window" in line 11. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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
Li et al., Pub. No.: US 20230006952 (Hereinafter “Li”) in view of Margot et al. Pub. No.: US 2023/0341950 (Hereinafter “Margot”).
Regarding Claim 1, Li 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 media item on the content (see paragraphs [0177] - [0179]);
generating a reply window for the comment (see paragraphs [0150] - [0152]);
Li 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;
receiving an output of the artificial intelligence (AI) model; and
pre-filling, based on the output, a reply window with a reply associated with the comment.
In analogous art, Margot teaches:
providing, as input to an artificial intelligence (AI) model, a prompt to cause the AI model to generate a reply to the comment (see paragraphs [0046] and [0112]);
receiving an output of the artificial intelligence (AI) model (see paragraphs [0090], [0094] and [0097]); and
pre-filling, based on the output, a reply window with a reply associated with the comment (see figs. 25, 32, paragraphs [0100] and [0112]).
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 Li with the teaching as taught by Margot in order to the user with suggestions of relevant words or phrases that can be used to start or continue a conversation on text message, email and/or various web applications.
Regarding Claim 2, Li in view of Margot discloses the method as discussed in the rejection of claim 1. Margot further discloses wherein the output comprises a link to a certain timestamp associated with the media item (see fig.21 and paragraph [0094]).
Regarding Claim 3, Li in view of Margot discloses the method as discussed in the rejection of claim 1. Margot further discloses retraining the AI model based on the reply (see paragraph [0086]).
Regarding Claim 4, Li in view of Margot discloses the method as discussed in the rejection of claim 3. Margot further discloses wherein the reply comprises one or more edits of a channel owner associated with the media item (see paragraphs [0062], [0102]-[0103] and [0112]).
Regarding Claim 5, Li in view of Margot discloses the method as discussed in the rejection of claim 1. Margot further discloses wherein the comment is identified in response to a channel owner associated with the media item selecting a button associated with the comment (see fig.31 and paragraph [0111]).
Regarding Claim 6, Li in view of Margot discloses the method as discussed in the rejection of claim 1. Margot further discloses wherein the comment is identified in response to a user posting the comment (see paragraphs [0081] and [0112]).
Regarding Claim 7, Li in view of Margot discloses the method as discussed in the rejection of claim 1. Margot further discloses wherein the media item is a live stream, and the comment is identified in response to a user joining the live stream or in response to a user posting a message in a chat associated with the live stream (see paragraphs [0081] and [0112]).
Regarding Claim 8, Li in view of Margot discloses the method as discussed in the rejection of claim 1. Margot further discloses wherein the AI model is trained using a plurality of media items posted on a channel associated with the media item (see paragraphs [0081] and [0112]).
Regarding Claim 9, Li in view of Margot discloses 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
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 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