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 .
Status of Claims
The office action is being examined in response to the application filed by the applicant on August 20th, 2024.
Claims 1 - 15 are pending and have been examined.
This action is made NON-FINAL.
The examiner would like to note that this application is now being handled by examiner Bill Chen.
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 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is not directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention. The four statutory categories of patent-eligible subject matter are processes, machines, manufactures, and compositions of matter. Claim 12 is directed to a “program” itself, i.e., software per se, rather than a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. A computer program, by itself, is merely a set of instructions or code and does not fall within any statutory category unless claimed as embodied in a statutory article, such as a non-transitory computer-readable medium, or as part of a machine or process.
Here, claim 12 does not recite a non-transitory computer-readable medium, a memory storing instructions, a machine, or method steps performed by a computer. Rather, claim 12 merely recites the program itself “for causing a computer to function as the information processing system according to claim 1.” Therefore, claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claims 1 – 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 2A, Prong 1: The abstract idea is defined by the elements of:
wherein the storage unit stores a plurality of user IDs specifying a plurality of respective users, and wherein the processing unit performs:
group generation processing of assigning each of the plurality of user IDs to a group on the basis of a predetermined reference value;
display of a timeline according to the group and the user ID; and
display of information representing a user related to the user ID and a comment input field for receiving an input comment together with the timeline.
These limitations are directed to organizing users into groups based on communication characteristics, displaying group-specific timeline information, and soliciting comments regarding users within the group. This is directed to managing relationships and interactions between people, including social activity, communication activity, and rules for organizing user interaction, which falls within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas.
The claim also recites collecting, evaluating, and displaying information, including assigning users to groups based on communication type/frequency and displaying user/timeline/comment information. These concepts may also be characterized as mental processes because they involve observation, evaluation, judgement, or opinion, such as evaluating communication activity and determining which users belong in a group.
Step 2A, Prong 2: For independent claims, the additional elements include a generic “information processing system,” “processing unit,” “storage unit,” stored “user IDs,” display of a “timeline,” a “comment input field,” and use of “electronic mail.” These elements are recited at a high level of generality and merely implement the abstract idea using generic computer components.
The claims do not recite an improvement to computer functionality, network technology, database operation, user interface technology, nor another technology or technical field. Rather, the computer is used as a tool to automate the organization of users, display social timeline information, receive comments, and transmit notifications. The claimed timeline, comment field, email notifications, and post/comment counts amount to presentation or communication of information resulting from the abstract grouping process. Accordingly, the claims do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: For independent claim 1, the claim is evaluated to determine whether it recites additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (e.g., an inventive concept). As indicated in the Step 2A, Prong 2 analysis, the additional element(s) in the claims amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components and a general link to a field of use. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components and a general link to a field of use cannot provide an inventive concept. The same analysis applies here in 2B analysis and does not provide an inventive concept.
Regarding the dependent claims, the claims cover or fall under the same abstract idea of a method of organizing human activity. They describe additional limitations steps of:
Claims 2 – 15: further recite details of the same abstract idea, including performing the grouping by team, displaying different timelines based on a user ID, suppressing or prompting a comment input field, performing grouping at predetermined timing, emailing information to users, using user relation information, generating timelines from posts, displaying post/comment counts, and emailing whether a post was made within a given period. These limitations merely further define the organization, display, prompting, notification, and monitoring of social/user interaction information.
Step 2A, Prong 2 and Step 2B: For dependent claims, these claims do not include additional elements, but further instruct one to practice the abstract idea by using general computer components that merely are used as a tool. Thus, it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (MPEP 2106.05(f)). Therefore, these claim limitations amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components and or computing technologies (e.g., that are merely deployed to be used as a tool; see MPEP 2106.05(f)). Additionally, these elements and their limitations are “merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application” (MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Therefore, claims 1 – 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 for being directed to an abstract idea without sufficient integration into a practical application, and the additional elements do not add significantly more than the judicial exception.
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.
Claims 1 – 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being unpatentable by Lyons (US20180188916A1).
Regarding claim 1:
Lyons discloses:
wherein the storage unit stores a plurality of user IDs specifying a plurality of respective users, and [¶0085] A user account database is used to store users as well as users’ account information;
wherein the processing unit performs: group generation processing of assigning each of the plurality of user IDs to a group on the basis of a predetermined reference value, and a type and frequency of communication [0159] Group walls are implemented in order to allow more than two users to share media;
display of a timeline according to the group and the user ID [Fig. 4F; ¶0061, ¶0094] A mediagram may contain personalized media content (i.e., viral videos, music and/or videos, images, viral videos, etc.) to at least one recipient. [¶0162] Interactions are organized and are presented in sequential order to a user; and
display of information representing a user related to the user ID and a comment input field for receiving an input comment on another user belonging to the group together with the timeline. [Fig. 4F; ¶0094] The mediagram displays post entries from users on a social network page;
Regarding claim 2:
Lyons discloses:
wherein the plurality of users belong to any of a plurality of user-belonging teams, [Fig. 8A; ¶0159] Users may be able to create groups that allow two or more members to create and share media to one another. Groups may utilize a relationship concierge in order to insert content with topics of a common interest; and
wherein the group generation processing is performed individually for each of the user-belonging teams [¶0159] Each group contains a group organizer. The group organizer is able to invite/remove users as well as permit other group members a role to invite/remove.
Regarding claim 3:
Lyons discloses:
reception of a screen display request associated with one of the user IDs [¶0080] Users may request to view content from the media management system as well as use content to create mediagrams. [Fig. 4A; ¶0088] An interface displays media via the mediagram; and
specification of the group to which the user ID belongs on the basis of the one user ID; and [Fig. 8A; ¶0159] Users may be able to create groups that allow two or more members to create and share media to one another. Groups may utilize a relationship concierge in order to insert content with topics of a common interest; and
display of the timeline which differs according to the group; [Fig. 8A; ¶0159] The social media platform displays a feed that allows users to view posts in chronological order. Media posts may contain mediagrams in which users are displayed under;
Regarding claim 4:
Lyons discloses:
wherein the processing unit does not display the comment input field when the comment associated with the one user ID has already been input [¶0159] Users are able to leave comments on content posts/mediagrams. Moderators of a group may also edit parameters such as lifespan of a post/mediagram;
Regarding claim 5:
Lyons discloses:
wherein, when the comment associated with the one user ID has not been input, the processing unit displays a message which prompts inputting of the comment in association with the comment input field [Figs. 4F, 15A; ¶0252] Mediagrams and content posts are displayed on a user interface. Text boxes are displayed to gesture to the user to input a comment if they haven’t done so;
Regarding claim 6:
Lyons discloses:
wherein the processing unit performs the group generation processing with predetermined timing [Fig. 8A; ¶0159] A user generating one-on-one as well as group private walls may be able to set a lifespan and other group time-parameters upon the group;
Regarding claim 7:
Lyons discloses:
wherein, for each group, the processing unit uses an electronic mail to a mail address associated with each of the user IDs belonging to the group to transmit information representing the user related to each of the user IDs belonging to the group [Fig. 4E; ¶0092] Users are able to distribute mediagrams and/or other media to other users via email. If a recipient does not have their own mediagram account, the mediagram can then be delivered via other contact options (e.g., email, text, social media);
Regarding claim 8:
Lyons discloses:
wherein the processing unit acquires user relation information representing a relation between the users, and [Fig. 4F; ¶0094] The mediagram platform comprises a social network that allows users to befriend another user to their friend’s list. [¶0153] Alternatively, the platform monitors frequency of interactions between users and is able to utilize a relationship concierge to help provide more efficient activity among users;
wherein the group generation processing is performed on the basis of the user relation information.
Regarding claim 9:
Lyons discloses:
wherein the processing unit receives a post associated with each of the user IDs to generate the timeline on the basis of the post. [Fig. 4F; ¶0094]: An example of a mediagram is displayed on a user mobile device displaying a post entry from a user as well as post activity (e.g., comments, shares, likes);
Regarding claim 10:
Lyons discloses:
wherein, for each group, the processing unit displays a total number of posts related to the user IDs belonging to the group and a total number of comments made on the posts. [Figs. 8A; ¶0159] Users are able to access group walls that they are invited to as well as access chat logs/post history;
Regarding claim 11:
Lyons discloses:
wherein, for each group, the processing unit uses an electronic mail to a mail address associated with each of the user IDs belonging to the group to transmit information representing whether or not the post associated with each of the user IDs belonging to the group is made within a given period [Fig. 4E; ¶0077, ¶0092] Users are able to distribute mediagrams and/or other media to other users via email. If a recipient does not have their own mediagram account, the mediagram can then be delivered via other contact options (e.g., email, text, social media);
Regarding claim 12:
Lyons discloses:
A program for causing a computer to function as the information processing system according to claim 1 [Fig. 1; ¶0062] The mediagram platform is produced by the system, which is then programmed to be displayed to user devices; [Fig. 22; ¶0289] A computer-readable medium is comprised of memory within a computing device.
Regarding claim 13:
Lyons discloses:
wherein the information processing system does not display a comment input field for receiving an input comment on a user not belonging to the group related to the timeline. [¶0155 - 0156] Private walls are closed off to the public, allowing two or more users to interact with one another. Only participants within the wall are able to view and contribute to the conversation;
Regarding claim 14:
Lyons discloses:
wherein the processing unit performs the group generation processing of assigning each of the plurality of user IDs to the group on the basis of an achievement of communication between the plurality of users [¶0155 - 0156] Private walls are closed off to the public, allowing two or more users to interact with one another. Only participants within the wall are able to view and contribute to the conversation. Alternatively, [Fig. 8A; ¶0155] teaches a relationship concierge that enables users to foster a stronger relationship with one another based on the frequency of communication using artificial intelligence algorithms;
Regarding claim 15:
Lyons discloses:
wherein the processing unit performs the group generation processing of assigning each of the plurality of user IDs to the group on the basis of an evaluation value obtained by evaluating that a relation value between the plurality of users, which is calculated on the basis of an achievement of communication between the plurality of users, is less than a predetermined threshold [¶0155 - 0156] Private walls are closed off to the public, allowing two or more users to interact with one another. Only participants within the wall are able to view and contribute to the conversation; Additionally, [Fig. 9C; ¶0203] Relationship profiles between users are stored and monitor frequency of interaction between users.
Pertinent Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
Brezin (US 20020178161A1) is pertinent because it is directed to “improving system performance based on users' communication behaviors.”
Pan (US 20190347702A1) is pertinent because it is directed to “user-to-user commerce within a social networking system. More specifically, one or more embodiments of the present disclosure relate to managing commerce-related communications within a social networking system.”
Tanabe (US 20190250660A1) is pertinent because it is directed to “an information processing apparatus including a CPU capable of executing communication processing with an external apparatus.”
Ranade (US 9578094B1) is pertinent because it is directed to “determining social graphs for individual users belonging to affiliations in virtual spaces accessible via virtual environments including, but not limited to, electronic social networks.”
Geller (US 20210286484A1) is pertinent because it is directed to “creating, storing and using annotations with an audiovisual program such as a stored digital video. The disclosure relates more specifically to improved techniques for association of annotations with both categories and tags in a taxonomy, and related search and organization operations.”
Kim (US 20160119271A1) is pertinent because it is directed to “social networking services, and more particularly to facilitating a card comprising a plurality of card content items.”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Bill Chen whose telephone number is (571)270-0660. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30am - 5:00pm.
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, Nathan Uber can be reached on (571) 270-3923. 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.
/BILL CHEN/Examiner, Art Unit 3626
/NATHAN C UBER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3626
Prosecution Insights