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 .
1. In response to the Office Action dated on 04/29/2026, applicant(s) amend the application as follow:
Claims amended: 1-14
Claims canceled: none
Claims newly added:
Claims pending: 1-14
Response to Arguments
2. Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 2 and 7 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
3. The amendment filed on including processor and memory 04/29/2026 have overcome the 112 rejection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
4. The argument and amendment which has overcome the 101 rejection.
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 factual inquiries 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 nonobviousness.
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 as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) 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 as of the effective filing date of the later invention 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.
5. Claim(s) 1, 4-6 and 12-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gupta et al. (Pub. No US 2022/0253777 A1) in view of HWANG et al. (Pub. No. US 2017/0178265 A1).
As to claim 1. (Currently Amended) Gupta and HWANG discloses a highly influential user search device for searching for data of a post of a highly influential user from data of posts on the Web, the highly influential user search device comprising a processor configured to execute operations comprising:
receiving data of a plurality of posts as input, wherein a post describes improvement of a predetermined service on the Web (user’s comments about the entity in a social media post) (paragraph 0049);
estimating, based on the data of the plurality of posts, scores of respective users who posted the respective posts of the plurality of posts by analyzing data of postings that describe a billing status of the respective users using related to the predetermined service (as an example, suppose a client completed payment for a particular product from a business entity. Suppose further the client provided feedback in the form of a customer review. In this example scenario, the ML engine can weigh the review feedback with a higher weight than a weight that is provided to the payment interaction…) (paragraph 0068);
aggregating, based on the estimated scores, scores of the respective posts and to specify a post of the plurality of posts by a user with a high score equal to or greater than a predetermined value as the highly influential user (the architecture 100 then shows how the system can modify the user’s subsequent experiences or interactions based on aggregated score 170, as shown by modify experience 175…) (paragraph 0086).
Gupta does not explicitly disclose extracting data of the specified post of the user with the high score thereby enabling acceptance of content of the post as an opinion by the highly influential user of the predetermined service to improve quality of the predetermined service.
HWANG discloses extracting data of the specified post of the user with the high score thereby enabling acceptance of content of the post as an opinion by the highly influential user of the predetermined service to improve quality of the predetermined service (in step of S304, the service server 100 give up high score to recent news to by reflecting a preset reference i.e. current date of the extracted news and generation date of the news tweet gives higher score according as a number of retweet increases, gives higher score according as a number of favorite writing designated in the tweet increases, and summaries the scores corresponding to the preset reference, the number of the retweeted and the number of the favorite writing) (paragraph 0155).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify teaching of Gupta to include as disclosed by extracting data of the specified post of the user with the high score thereby enabling acceptance of content of the post as an opinion by the highly influential user of the predetermined service to improve quality of the predetermined service HWANG in order to obtained best opinion for decision making.
As to claim 6. (Currently Amended) Gupta discloses the highly influential user search device according to claim 1, wherein the post analysis unit acquires data of a post indicating a billing status of a user over a predetermined period from present to past is acquired, and thereby estimates the billing status of the user (as an example, suppose a client completed payment for a particular product from a business entity. Suppose further the client provided feedback in the form of a customer review. In this example scenario, the ML engine can weight the review feedback with a higher weight than a weight that is provided to the payment interaction…) (paragraph 0068).
Claim 7 is rejected under the same reason as to claim 1, Gupta discloses a highly influential user search method executed by a highly influential user search device to search for data of a post of a highly influential user from data of posts on the Web, wherein the highly influential user search device includes: at least one processor (one or more processor) (paragraph 0131); and memory (memory) (paragraph 0131) storing instructions (computer executable instructions) (paragraph 0131) that, when executed by the at least one processor (one or more processor) (paragraph 0131), cause the highly influential user search device to perform a set of operations.
As to claim 8, Gupta discloses a computer-readable non-transitory recording medium (memory) (paragraph 0131) storing a computer-executable program instructions instructions (computer executable instructions) (paragraph 0131) that when executed by a processor cause causing a computer to perform operations of the highly influential user search method according to claim 7 (.
Claim 14 is rejected under the same reason as to claim 6.
6. Claim(s) 1, 4-6 and 12-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gupta et al. (Pub. No US 2022/0253777 A1) in view of HWANG et al. (Pub. No. US 2017/0178265 A1).
As to claim 4. (Currently Amended) Gupta and HWANG discloses the highly influential user search device according to claim 1 excepting for wherein the post analysis unit estimates a service use history of the user is estimated by acquiring the oldest post indicating that the user uses the predetermined service. However, the post analysis unit estimates a service use history of the user is estimated by acquiring the oldest post indicating that the user uses the predetermined service (using “information which allow a facility, a store or a transportation means to be identified” and which is included in the service user history specified in step S6 and information which allows the user associated with the service use history as key, presence accuracy determination data which is at least one of post data posted by the user as to the service, evaluation data evaluated by the user as to the service and related data of the post data is acquired from the predetermined site as described above) (paragraph 0097). This suggests the claimed language the post analysis unit estimates a service use history of the user is estimated by acquiring the oldest post indicating that the user uses the predetermined service. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify teaching of Gupta and HWANG to included the post analysis unit estimates a service use history of the user is estimated by acquiring the oldest post indicating that the user uses the predetermined service as disclosed by Shad in order to obtained valuable post.
Claim 12 is rejected under the same reason as to claim 4.
7. Claim(s) 1, 4-6 and 12-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gupta et al. (Pub. No US 2022/0253777 A1) in view of HWANG et al. (Pub. No. US 2017/0178265 A1) and further in view of Shah et al. (Pub. No. US 2023/0052274 A1).
As to claim 5. (Currently Amended) Gupta and HWANG disclose the highly influential user search device according to claim 1 excepting for wherein the post analysis unit acquires a predetermined number of tweets having impressions equal to or greater than a threshold among posts made by a user over a predetermined period from present to past is acquired, and estimates influence of the user by summing up adding the impressions. However, Shah discloses wherein the post analysis unit acquires a predetermined number of tweets having impressions equal to or greater than a threshold among posts made by a user over a predetermined period from present to past is acquired, and estimates influence of the user by summing up adding the impressions (the first constraint is that the sum of the products of the weight and the total number of impression per demographic as reported in the AME panel data for panelist matching user accounts of the database proprietor 102 be equal to (or within a threshold of) total number of impression per demographic for the media after processing…) (paragraph 0118). This suggests the claimed language of wherein the post analysis unit acquires a predetermined number of tweets having impressions equal to or greater than a threshold among posts made by a user over a predetermined period from present to past is acquired, and estimates influence of the user by summing up adding the impressions. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify teaching of Gupta and HWANG to include wherein the post analysis unit acquires a predetermined number of tweets having impressions equal to or greater than a threshold among posts made by a user over a predetermined period from present to past is acquired, and estimates influence of the user by summing up adding the impressions as disclosed by Shad in order to provide posts to user.
Claim 13 is rejected under the same reason as to claim 5.
Allowable Subject Matter
8. Claims 2-3 and 9-11 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
As to claim 2, the cited references alone or in combination fails to teach or suggest “an input unit configured to receiving input data of a predetermined plurality of posts as input, wherein a post describes improvement of related to a predetermined service on the Web; analyze to estimate, based on the data of the plurality of post, scores of respective users who posted the respective posts of the plurality of posts by analyzing for estimating data on a service use history of a user related to the predetermined service, data on influence of the user related to the predetermined service, and data of postings that describe a billing status of the respective users using related to the predetermined service; aggregate, based on the estimated scores, scores of the respective posts to specify a post of the plurality of posts by a user with a high score equal to or greater than a predetermined value as the highly influential user; and extract data of the specified post of the user with the high score, thereby enabling acceptance of content of the post as an opinion by the highly influential user of the predetermined service to improve quality of the predetermined service.”
Dependent claims 3 and 9-11 are allowed under the same reason as to claim 2.
Conclusion
9 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 BAOQUOC N TO whose telephone number is (571)272-4041. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9AM - 6PM.
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, Boris Gorney can be reached at 571-270-5626. 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.
BAOQUOC N. TO
Examiner
Art Unit 2154
/BAOQUOC N TO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2154
Prosecution Insights