DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
The present application, filed on or after 3/16/2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This action is in reply to the Application and claims filed 8/12/2024.
Claims 1-20 have been examined and are pending.
Information Disclosure Statement (IDS)
Acknowledgement is hereby made of receipt of Information Disclosure Statements filed by applicant on 9/19/2024; 2/28/2024; 3/20/2025; 9/5/2025.
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) to co-pending provisional patent application serial number 63/532,004 filed August 10, 2023 is acknowledged.
(AIA ) Examiner Note
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 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned at the time any inventions covered therein were effectively filed absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned at the time a later invention was effectively filed in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention
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 (i.e. a judicial exception) without significantly more.
Per step 1 of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, the claims are directed towards a process, machine, or manufacture.
Per step 2A Prong One, the claims recite specific limitations which fall within at least one of the groupings of abstract ideas enumerated in the 2019 PEG, as follows:
Per Independent claims 1 and 18:
facilitate a debate between two or more participants;
monitor said debate in real time and to flag instances of inappropriate language;
sending real time notifications relating to flagged language to said participants and to a system support team.
As noted supra, these limitations fall within at least one of the groupings of abstract ideas enumerated in the 2019 PEG. Specifically, these limitations fall within the group Certain Methods Of Organizing Human Activity (e.g. fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions).
That is, these steps as drafted are nothing more than a business decision regarding moderating a public debate including adhering to social standards of decorum which include identifying inappropriate language and letting the participants know what language is flagged or deemed to be inappropriate and thus falling into Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity. There is no technical solution claimed and no technical problem being solved. Furthermore, the mere nominal recitation of a generic computer components and generic AI (artificial intelligence – which is not applicant’s invention) used to facilitate the abstract idea does not take the claim limitation out of the enumerated grouping. Thus, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Per step 2A Prong 2, the Examiner finds that the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Although there are additional elements, other than those noted supra, recited in the claims, none of these additional element(s) or a combination of elements as recited in the claims apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that it is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. As drafted, the claims as a whole merely describe how to generally “apply” the aforementioned concepts or, link them to a field of use (i.e. in this moderating a debate) or, serve as insignificant extra-solution activity (e.g. data-gathering and data transfer). The claimed computer components (e.g. a system processor connected to two or more user computing devices via a communications network; each said user computing device comprising a display; said system processor further connected to a database comprising a memory; a user interface accessible on each said user computing device display; and… an artificial intelligence (AI) monitoring system, etc…) are recited at a very high level of generality and not applicant’s invention and are merely invoked as generic pre-existing tools to implement the idea but are not technical in nature themselves when recited at this very high level of abstraction. Simply implementing the abstract idea on or with generic computer components, including generic AI, is not a practical application of the abstract idea.
These additional limitations are as follows: “An online debate system comprising: a system processor connected to two or more user computing devices via a communications network; each said user computing device comprising a display; said system processor further connected to a database comprising a memory; a user interface accessible on each said user computing device display; wherein said system processor is configured to facilitate a debate between two or more participants accessible via said user interface; wherein said system processor is programmed with an artificial intelligence (AI) monitoring system comprising an AI model having speech to text transcription functionality… wherein said AI monitoring system is configured for sending real time notifications”
However, these elements do not present a technical solution to a technical problem; i.e. Applicant’s invention is not a technique nor technical solution for “speech to text” nor “AI” nor “sending real time notifications” (e.g. mere data transfer) when recited at this high-level of generality. The additional elements do not recite a specific manner of performing any of the steps core to the already identified abstract idea. Instead, these features merely serve to generally “apply” the aforementioned concepts or, link them to a field of use or, are insignificant extra-solution activity to the already identified abstract idea and do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application thereof.
Per Step 2B, the Examiner does not find that the claims provide an inventive concept, i.e., the claims do not recite additional element(s) or a combination of elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception recited in the claim. As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements in the independent claims were considered as merely serving to generally “apply” the aforementioned concepts via generically described computer components and “link” them to a field of use (i.e. debate moderation), or as insignificant extra-solution activity (e.g. data gathering, transfer, and storage). For the same reason these elements are not sufficient to provide an inventive concept; i.e. the same analysis applies here in 2B. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component and conventional data gathering cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. So, upon revaluating here in step 2B, these elements are determined to amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (i.e. a server) and/or gather and transmit data which is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field; i.e. note the Symantec, TLI, and OIP Techs Court decisions cited in MPEP 2106.05(d)(ll) indicate that mere receipt or transmission of data over a network is a well-understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here).
Accordingly, alone and in combination, these elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, as found supra, nor provide an inventive concept, and thus the claims are not patent eligible.
As for the dependent claims, the dependent claims do recite a combination of additional elements. However, these claims as a whole, considered either independently or in combination with the parent claims, do not integrate the identified abstract idea into a practical application thereof nor do they provide an inventive concept.
For example, dependent claim 2 recites the following: “The online debate system according to claim 1, wherein: said AI monitoring system is configured to identify offensive words out of one or more sentences and said notifications are configured to provide context for why language was flagged.” However, a wish for an AI which is capable of identifying offensive words and then providing a notification including context why a word is deemed offensive – i.e. the configured to provide context for why language was flagged, is part of the abstract idea. Applicant has not invented any particular AI and does has not disclosed a particular AI model which is capable of such functionality in his entire specification and therefore, at this high-level of generality, this is not significantly more than the already identified abstract idea.
Therefore, the Examiner does not find that these additional claim limitations integrate the abstract idea into a practical application nor provide an inventive concept. Instead, these limitations, as a whole and in combination with the already recited claim elements of the parent claims, are not significantly more than the already identified abstract idea. A similar finding is found for the remaining dependent claims.
For these reasons, the claims are not found to include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception and therefore the claims are not found to be patent eligible.
Please see the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance published in the Federal Register (84 FR 50) on January 7, 2019 (found at http://www.uspto.gov/patent/laws-and-regulations/examination-policy/examination-guidance-and-training-materials).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 (AIA )
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 of this title, 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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or non-obviousness.
Claims 1-5, 8, 10-13, 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Mickeal et al. (U.S. US 2021/0258536 A1; hereinafter, "Mickeal") in view of Ziv (U.S. 2023/0409654 A1; hereinafter, "Ziv").
Claims 1, 18:
Pertaining to claims 1 and 18, exemplified in the limitations of claim 1, Mickeal as shown teaches the following:
An online debate system comprising:
a system processor connected to two or more user computing devices via a communications network (Mickeal, see at least Figs. 1, 2A, 2B and at least [0016]-[0017]);
each said user computing device comprising a display (Mickeal, see citations noted supra, e.g. again per at least [0016]-[0017] each user device has a display such as the display of a smartphone, tablet, computer, etc…);
said system processor further connected to a database comprising a memory (Mickeal, see citations noted supra, including also at least [0033]-[0034] e.g. videos are saved in a database that can be in the cloud or at a central location, and which may be searched; i.e. Mickeal teaches a user may choose by genre, keyword, user, most popular, date, and the like to search for a particular debate. When the user has set the filter the system searches for matching debates. Also, per at least [0042]-[0043] and [0048] Mickeal teaches his system comprises various types of memory to facilitate his disclosure);
a user interface accessible on each said user computing device display (Mickeal, see citations noted supra, in view of at least [0021]-[0023], teaching, e.g.: “…FIGS. 2A and 2B are an example of an interface in an embodiment of the system on a mobile phone. The display 200 includes buttons to watch a debate 201 or to create a debate 202. The page is populated with completed debates such as "Who is the greatest female singer of all time" 203 in the "General" category 204. There are a number of categories that a user can select for debate topics…”);
wherein said system processor is configured to facilitate a debate between two or more participants accessible via said user interface (Mickeal, see citations noted supra, e.g. again per at least [0021]-[0023]: “…The system allows the selection of themes for the debate. A theme represents the graphics, font, and other graphical items used in association with the video. The theme may include sports type logos for the participants and may change based on the speaker. The themes may include upvote and downvote buttons so that future viewers can indicate who "won" the debate…”);
wherein said system processor is […] configured to monitor said debate in real time (Mickeal, see citations noted supra, including also at least [0019], e.g.: “…the debate takes place live in real-time. The system mutes each user when it is not their time to speak, but continues to video them so that reactions are recorded and can be seen. At the end of the debate, the system processes and stores the discussion, allowing it to be replayed, shared, transmitted, with available links to post on social media…”)
Although Mickeal teaches the above features regarding automatically controlled online debates, and per at least [0033]-[0034] teaches his videos of each debate include metadata allowing a user to search for a particular debate, e.g. “…metadata to assist in searching and filtering including the names of the debaters, the topic category, scoring, likes, views, date, region, and the like… user may choose by genre, keyword, user, most popular, date, and the like. When the user has set the filter the system searches for matching debates”, which implies Mickeal uses some form of transcription from speech to text at least to enable the storage of text associated as metadata with his videos to enable “keyword” searching, Mickeal may not explicitly teach such nuances as recited below. However, regarding these features, Mickeal in view of Ziv teaches the following:
[wherein said system processor is] programmed with an artificial intelligence (Al) monitoring system comprising an Al model having speech to text transcription functionality (Ziv, see at least Fig. 2 and at least [0026]-[0027]: “…AI modules 122A-D each comprise software code or instructions for performing a specific task for achieving the insight objective. In examples, the software code or instructions enable topic detection and inferencing, object detection and classification, speech detection and classification, speech-to-text,…”) […] and to flag instances of inappropriate language (Ziv, see citations noted supra, including again at least Fig. 2, #218 depicting the flagging of “profanity”; and note per at least [0049]-[0050], e.g.: “…For instance, the user may specify the insight objective “Identify Inappropriate Content.” At operation 504, a schema is evaluated using the insight objective. In examples, the UI automatically evaluates the received insight objective against a schema stored by or accessible to the UI. The schema comprises mappings that correlate (e.g., map) insight objectives to sets of AI modules. The set of AI modules that are correlated to an insight objective are configured to form an AI pipeline for satisfying the insight objective. For example, a schema may correlate the insight objective “Identify Inappropriate Content” to a set of AI modules comprising an AI module for detecting… profanity [in appropriate language] in audio data…”; and again per at least [0026]-[0027]: “…Operator 124 may represent a step in AI pipeline 118 and define a processing action, such as applying a condition (e.g., an if-then statement), performing data aggregation or sorting, or performing an associated with the content (e.g., stop content playback, mute content, flag content [flag inappropriate language], delete content)…”);
wherein said Al monitoring system is configured for sending real time notifications relating to flagged language to said participants and to a system support team (Ziv, see citations noted supra, including again at least Fig. 2 where “profanity” is flagged and the users are notified within the user interface of the profanity, e.g. at min 00:00:55 via “audio analysis” #218.
PNG
media_image1.png
854
1210
media_image1.png
Greyscale
)
Therefore, the Examiner understands that the limitations in question are merely applying known techniques of Ziv (directed towards techniques of using AI to transcribe online speech to text to recognize in appropriate language such as profanity and then to flag such profanity and notify users in real time of such flagged language e.g. via user interfaces) which are applicable to a known base device/method of Mickeal (already directed towards a method/system of automated monitoring and control of online debates which includes creation of metadata to assist in searching debates via keyword search) to yield predictable results. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the techniques of Ziv to the device/method of Mickeal in order to incorporate the techniques of Ziv for the benefits of flagging inappropriate content for debates and/or merely to enhance Mickeal’s mechanism for producing metadata enabling greater granularity in searching debates for various content and because Ziv is pertinent to the video analysis objectives of Mickeal and because according to MPEP 2143(I) (C) and/or (D), the use of known technique to improve a known device, methods, or products in the same way (or which is ready for improvement) is obvious.
Claim 2:
Mickeal/Ziv teach the limitations upon which this claim depends. Furthermore, as shown Mickeal/Ziv teaches the following: The online debate system according to claim 1, wherein: said Al monitoring system is configured to identify offensive words out of one or more sentences and said notifications are configured to provide context for why language was flagged (Ziv, again see citations noted supra, including again Fig. 2 and [0037]; e.g. the reason for flagging the audio content is explained by it being deemed “profanity”, etc…: “…audio insight section 218 indicates that specific acoustic events (e.g., profanity, a car horn, and glass breaking) were detected in the audio data…”).
Claims 3, 19:
Regarding claims 3 and 19, exemplified in the limitations of claim 3, Mickeal/Ziv are found to teach the limitations upon which these claims depends. Furthermore, as shown Mickeal teaches the following: The online debate system according to claim 1, wherein: said user interface is further configured for access by one or more viewer users; and said user interface is further configured to allow said one or more viewer users to vote on winners of said debate (Mickeal, see citations noted supra including also at least [0017], e.g.: “…The system allows for other non-participating debaters to watch the live debate in-progress and those watchers may vote for a winner of the debate, upvote the entire debate, leave comments, and the like…”).
Claims 4, 20:
Regarding claims 4 and 20, exemplified in the limitations of claim 4, Mickeal/Ziv are found to teach the limitations upon which these claims depends. Furthermore, as shown Mickeal teaches the following: The online debate system according to claim 3, wherein: said Al monitoring system is further configured to moderate time to speak for each of said participants, monitor votes from said one or more viewer users, and to continually update a winner of said debate based on said votes (Mikeal, see at least [0017]-[0021], e.g.: “…the debate takes place live in real-time. The system mutes each user when it is not their time to speak, but continues to video them so that reactions are recorded and can be seen. At the end of the debate, the system processes and stores the discussion, allowing it to be replayed, shared, transmitted, with available links to post on social media….” And “…The
system allows for other non-participating debaters to watch the live debate in-progress and those watchers may vote for a winner of the debate, upvote the entire debate, leave comments, and the like… The themes may include upvote and downvote buttons so that future viewers can indicate who "won" the debate…”).
Claim 5:
Mickeal/Ziv teach the limitations upon which this claim depends. Furthermore, as shown Mickeal teaches the following: The online debate system according to claim 3, further comprising: a comments page associated with said debate and accessible by said one or more viewer users via said user interface (Mickeal, see citations noted supra in view of at least [0035], e.g: “…While watching the user may vote for a winner of the debate, upvote the entire debate, leave comments, and the like. In one embodiment the user is presented with a "like" or "thumbs-up" icon below each debater that allows the user to vote for that debater. In one embodiment the icons and/or voting region have different colors for each debater. The user can provide comments by selecting a comment icon or by adding text to a displayed text box…”).
Claim 8:
Mickeal/Ziv teach the limitations upon which this claim depends. Furthermore, as shown Mickeal teaches the following: The online debate system according to claim 1, further comprising: an advertisement page accessible by an advertiser user via said user interface; and said advertisement page comprising a customizable advertisement creation form configured to accommodate input from said advertiser user regarding an advertisement to be created (Mickeal, see at least Fig. 6 and [030], teaching: “…advertising could be provided between rounds such as illustrated in FIG. 6. The ad may be shown on most of the display 601 with the debate topic still showing at region 303…”; examiner notes that because advertising is taught as being shown, there must be some mechanism by which to upload such advertising and therefore because Mickeal already teaches various users may sign in and log on to his system to create content including debates, the Examiner finds that a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized this mechanism to be one mde by which to enable the advertising teachings of Mickeal and therefore it would have been obvious to try andor to modify Mickeal to accommodate an advertisement page accessible by an advertiser user via said user interface; and said advertisement page comprising a customizable advertisement creation form configured to accommodate input from said advertiser user regarding an advertisement to be created to enable the advertising as taught by Mickeal because per MPEP 2143(I) (G) Some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention is obvious. The motivation t may be implicit and may be found in the knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art, or, in some cases, from the nature of the problem to be solved. Id. at 1366, 80 USPQ2d at 1649.).
Claim 10:
Mickeal/Ziv teach the limitations upon which this claim depends. Furthermore, as shown Mickeal teaches the following: The online debate system according to claim 1, wherein the user interface further comprises: a debate creation page for creating said debate (Mickeal, see citations noted supra, including at least [0021]-[0023], e.g.: “…FIGS. 2A and 2B are an example of an interface in an embodiment of the system on a mobile phone. The display 200 includes buttons to watch a debate 201 or to create a debate 202…”); an instant debate page for joining or creating an instant debate (Mickeal, see citations noted supra, including at least [0021]-[0023], e.g.: “…FIGS. 2A and 2B are an example of an interface in an embodiment of the system on a mobile phone. The display 200 includes buttons to watch a debate 201 or to create a debate 202…”); and a curated debate page for registering to participate in a curated debate (Mickeal, see citations noted supra, including at least [0021]-[0023] in view of at least [0026]-[0027], e.g.: “…At decision block 405 it is determined if at least a second user has selected the topic and elected to participate in the debate…”; In view of these teachings, the Examiner finds Mickeal provides motivation to provide a user with some mechanism by which to register to participate in a debate to which they have been invited to participate, and Mickeal’s interface page e.g. Figs. 2A and 2B are natural candidate models by which to interface with such a user, and therefore it would be obvious to provide such a page to the user who has been “invited” such that they may register and participate in the debate to which they have been invited because per MPEP 2143(I) (G) Some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention is obvious. The motivation t may be implicit and may be found in the knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art, or, in some cases, from the nature of the problem to be solved. Id. at 1366, 80 USPQ2d at 1649.).
Claim 11:
Mickeal/Ziv teach the limitations upon which this claim depends. Furthermore, as shown Mickeal teaches the following: The online debate system according to claim 1, wherein: the debate creation page includes fields for inputting debate parameters including said participants, a position for each participant, and a time limit (Mickeal, see citations noted supra, in view of at least [0004], teaching: “…The system is an automated debate moderator that provides muting, time limits [a time limit], number of rounds, round duration countdown, order of speaking [position for each participant], and end time that can be accessed via any processing device, including smartphones,…” and per at least [0027]: “…The user who has selected the topic may invite one or more friends to debate the topic. Alternatively, the topic may be offered to all uses of the system and any may choose to participate…” [input parameters include said participants]).
Claim 12:
Mickeal/Ziv teach the limitations upon which this claim depends. Furthermore, as shown Mickeal teaches the following: The online debate system according to claim 1, wherein: the user interface further comprises a debate video feed including a split screen display showing said participants (Mikeal, see citations noted supra, including at least [0019]: “..The system may be split screen left and right or top and bottom, or the image of the non-speaking user will be in a small inset screen on the display…”)
Claim 13:
Mickeal/Ziv teach the limitations upon which this claim depends. Furthermore, as shown Mickeal/Ziv teaches the following: The online debate system according to claim 1, wherein: said Al monitoring system is trained samples of appropriate language and said inappropriate language (Ziv, see citations noted supra, including also at least [0050], e.g.: “…an AI module for detecting profanity in audio data,…”; A person of ordinary skill in the art immediately understands that AI which detects profanity must have been trained on what is profanity and what is not profanity and therefore, whether explicitly stated, there is motivation provided from Ziv’s teachings and found within the knowledge of a person of ordinary skill in the art to include in Ziv’s AI module for detecting profanity in audio data the recited trained samples of appropriate language and said inappropriate language to enable the teachings of Ziv and because per MPEP 2143(I) (G) Some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention is obvious. The motivation may be implicit and may be found in the knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art, or, in some cases, from the nature of the problem to be solved. Id. at 1366, 80 USPQ2d at 1649.).
Claim 16:
Mickeal/Ziv teach the limitations upon which this claim depends. Furthermore, as shown Mickeal teaches the following: The online debate system according to claim 4, wherein: each said user computing device comprises or is connected to a microphone and a camera (Mickeal, see citations noted supra, including at least [0016]: user devices include “a camera and microphone”).
Claim 17:
Mickeal/Ziv teach the limitations upon which this claim depends. Furthermore, as shown Mickeal teaches the following: The online debate system according to claim 16, wherein: said Al monitoring system is configured to mute said microphone on each said user computing device when it is not the time to speak of the participant associated with said muted computing device (Mickeal, see citations noted supra, including at least [0019], e.g.: “…The system mutes each user when it is not their time to speak, but continues to video them so that reactions are recorded and can be seen. At the end of the debate, the system processes and stores the discussion, allowing it to be replayed, shared, transmitted, with available links to post on social media…”).
Claims 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Mickeal in view of Ziv further in view of Kulkarni et al. (U.S.2008/0177752A1; hereinafter, "Kulkarni").
Claim 6:
Although Mickeal/Ziv teach the limitations upon which this claim depends, including a system/method which provides an automated forum for controlled debates which may be viewed by other users and upon which such other users may comment, like, and vote for winners, they may not explicitly teach the nuance of video comments as recited below. However, Mickeal in view of Kulkarni teaches the following:
The online debate system according to claim 5, wherein: said comments page is configured to accommodate video comments being posted thereto by said one or more viewer users (Kulkarni, see at least [0029]-[030]: “…The present invention relates to a method for video weblogging (blogging) application that enhances the blogging from just image and text to audio-video… The present invention relates to a method that helps a user to create and participate in video blogging by inserting comments in a form of text, audio, and audio-video instantaneously at suitable locations while watching an original blog in real-time without modifying the original blog…” ).
Therefore, the Examiner understands that the limitation in question is merely applying a known technique of Kulkarni (directed towards techniques of enabling video comments in real-time instantaneously at suitable locations while watching an original blog, e.g. debate, in real-time without modifying the original blog/debate) which is applicable to a known base device/method of Mickeal (already directed towards a system/method which allows users to comment on a real-time debate, analogous to Kulkarni’s “blog”) to yield predictable results. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the technique of Kulkarni to the device/method of Mickeal in order to perform the limitation in question because Kulkarni is pertinent to the objective of Mickeal and because according to MPEP 2143(I) (C) and/or (D), the use of known technique to improve a known device, methods, or products in the same way (or which is ready for improvement) is obvious.
Claim 7:
Mickeal/Ziv/Kulkarni teach the limitations upon which this claim depends. Furthemore, Mickeal/Ziv in view of Kulkarni teaches the following: The online debate system according to claim 6, wherein: said system is configured to compress and format said video comments with a letter box within said comments section (Kulkarni, see citations noted supra, including again at least [0045]: “…Along with the above information, the descriptor stores the data (text, audio, video) inserted by the user in a compressed/encoded form…” and note per [0031]: “The present invention further relates to a method wherein a user can watch original blog along with comments inserted by other users at various locations (i.e., comments inserted with respect to a time of insertion of each comment into the original blog. The blog, along with the comments, can be viewed online or can be downloaded/streamed before viewing. The user can add or see comments interleaved with respect to a time of insertion of each comment into the original blog, or with a traditional back-to-back addition of each comment.”)
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Mickeal in view of Ziv further in view of De Heer (U.S. 2010/0205562 A1; hereinafter, "De Heer").
Claim 9:
Although Mickeal/Ziv teach the limitations upon which this claim depends, including a system/method which provides users with interfaces to add content to a debate, such as advertising, they may not explicitly teach the below nuance as recited. However, regarding this feature, Mickeal/Ziv in view of De Heer teaches the following:
The online debate system according to claim 8, wherein: said advertisement page further comprises an advertisement preview configured for displaying a mockup advertisement via said user interface of said advertisement to be created based on input into said customizable advertisement creation form (De Heer, see at least [0022]-[0024], teaching, e.g.: “…[0024] The advertisement creation interface 124 can be implemented to then generate a preview of the targeted advertisement from the advertisement template incorporated with the advertisement content, and initiate a display of the preview of the targeted advertisement for review by the user. The advertisement creation interface 124 can incorporate the advertisement content in the advertisement template, bind the template to an interactive television application, and play back the storyboard sequence in an interactive television simulator, such as via a Web page. In an embodiment, the advertisement creation interface 124 can be implemented as a network-based application that can be linked into from the operator portal 106, and can provide the pass-through authentication and user data to associate a user with others according to the list of user associations 122….”).
Therefore, the Examiner understands that the limitation in question is merely applying a known technique of De Heer (directed towards techniques of provisioning advertisements, including the features as recited such as providing an advertisement preview configured for displaying a preview of an advertisement via a user interface based on input into a customizable advertisement creation page [form]) which is applicable to a known base device/method of Mickeal/Ziv (already directed towards a system/method which allows advertisers to add advertisements to an online debate) to yield predictable results. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the technique of De Heer to the device/method of Mickeal/Ziv in order to perform the limitation in question and enhance Mickeal/Ziv’s advertisement features and because De Heer is pertinent to the advertising objectives of Mickeal/Ziv and because according to MPEP 2143(I) (C) and/or (D), the use of known technique to improve a known device, methods, or products in the same way (or which is ready for improvement) is obvious.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Mickeal in view of Ziv further in view of Lee et al. (U.S.2020/0020320 A1; hereinafter, "Lee").
Claim 14:
Although Mickeal/Ziv teach the limitations upon which this claim depends, including a system/method which provides an automated forum for controlled debates which may include AI modules configured to identify inappropriate content such as profanity in audio, they may not explicitly teach the nuance of training such AI module as recited below. However, regarding this feature, Mickeal/Ziv in view of Lee teaches the following:
The online debate system according to claim 13, wherein: said Al monitoring system is configured to further train to identify said inappropriate language by continually learning and adapting to new language over time (Lee, see at least [0107]-[0117], teaching: “Regional dialect speech is inputted through the smart electronic device 300 (for example, an AI speaker 302) and the inputted speech is converted into an analog signal, and the converted analog signal is converted into a digital signal through sampling. The speech recognition engine 110 extracts features of the speech, that is, a feature vector, from the digital signal… In addition, the performance estimation module 260 compares a previous automatic speech recognition with a new automatic speech recognition in which a degree of reliability is estimated. When it is determined that a speech recognition function is improved by a new phoneme adaptive model 120 and a new language model 140, an acoustic model 120 and a language model 140 of the ASR 101 is updated to include newly trained contents…”).
Therefore, the Examiner understands that the limitation in question is merely applying a known technique of Lee (directed towards techniques of continually training a speech AI to adapt to new language models) which is applicable to a known base device/method of Mickeal/Ziv (already directed towards a system/method which makes use of AI modules for detecting inappropriate language such as profanity in audio signals) to yield predictable results. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the technique of Lee to the device/method of Mickeal/Ziv in order to perform the limitation in question and enhance Mickeal/Ziv’s Ai modules and because Lee is pertinent to the objective of Mickeal/Ziv and because according to MPEP 2143(I) (C) and/or (D), the use of known technique to improve a known device, methods, or products in the same way (or which is ready for improvement) is obvious.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Mickeal in view of Ziv further in view of Shen et al. (U.S.2022/0245487 A1; hereinafter, "Shen").
Claim 15:
Although Mickeal/Ziv teach the limitations upon which this claim depends including an AI module trained to identify profanity [inappropriate language], they may not delve into the minutia of training such AI. However, regarding the below recited feature, Mickeal/Ziv in view of Shen teaches the following:
The online debate system according to claim 13, wherein: said Al monitoring system is further trained to identify said inappropriate language by manual review and correction by one or more administrative user (Shen, see at least [0026]: “…It is to be noted that, referring to FIG. 2 and FIG. 3, the model layer may also include a model update module. The model update module may be configured to regularly obtain sample data with incorrect predictions or insufficient prediction accuracy and new sample data, and retrain the existing prediction models by using this part of sample data and actual prediction result obtained by manual correction [manual review and correction], such that the trained prediction models can make accurate predictions for this part of sample data. In this way, accuracy of the prediction result can be guaranteed by continuously updating the prediction models that has been trained…”).
Therefore, the Examiner understands that the limitation in question is merely applying a known technique of Shen (directed towards techniques of training AI models by manual review and correction) which is applicable to a known base device/method of Mickeal/Ziv (already directed towards a system/method which makes use of AI modules, in need of training, which are used for detecting inappropriate language such as profanity in audio signals) to yield predictable results. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the technique of Shen to the device/method of Mickeal/Ziv in order to perform the limitation in question and enhance Mickeal/Ziv’s AI modules and because Shen is pertinent to the objective of Mickeal/Ziv and because according to MPEP 2143(I) (C) and/or (D), the use of known technique to improve a known device, methods, or products in the same way (or which is ready for improvement) is obvious.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL J SITTNER whose telephone number is (571)270-3984. The examiner can normally be reached M-F; ~9:30-6:30. 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, Waseem Ashraf can be reached on (571) 270-3948. 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.
/Michael J Sittner/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3621