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 .
Continuity/reexam data
Parent data
18848869 filed 09/19/2024 is a National Stage entry of PCT/JP2022/014154 , International Filing Date: 03/24/2022
Child data
None
Foreign data
No foreign data information
(*) - Request to retrieve electronic copy of foreign priority from participating receiving offices.
Preliminary amendment
1. Applicant(s) amend the application as follow:
Claims previously filed: 1-6
Claims amended: 4-6
Clams newly added: 9-14
Clams canceled: none
Claims pending: 1-14
Information Disclosure Statement
2. The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 09/19/2024. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Priority
3. Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Drawings
4. The drawing filed on 09/19/2024 was accepted for examination.
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.
5. Claims 1-14 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 is being indefinite because the specification does not provide the reasonable descriptions to support the claim limitations.
Dependent claims 4-6 are rejected under the same reason as to claim 1.
Claim 2 is being indefinite because the specification does not provide the reasonable descriptions to support the claim limitations.
Dependent claims 2-3 and 9-11 are rejected under the same reason as to claim 2.
Claim 7 is rejected because the specification does not provide the reasonable descriptions to support the claim limitations.
Dependent claims 8 and 12-14 are rejected under the same reason as to claim 7.
6. As to claim 1, the claim limitation an input unit configured…, a post analysis unit configured…, a score calculation unit configured.. and an output unit configured to…has been evaluated under the three-prong test set forth in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, but the result is inconclusive. Thus, it is unclear whether this limitation should be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim language invoke the mean plus function without proper structure. The boundaries of this claim limitation are ambiguous; therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
In response to this rejection, applicant must clarify whether this limitation should be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. Mere assertion regarding applicant’s intent to invoke or not invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph is insufficient. Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim to clearly invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, by reciting “means” or a generic placeholder for means, or by reciting “step.” The “means,” generic placeholder, or “step” must be modified by functional language, and must not be modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function;
(b) Present a sufficient showing that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, should apply because the claim limitation recites a function to be performed and does not recite sufficient structure, material, or acts to perform that function;
(c) Amend the claim to clearly avoid invoking 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, by deleting the function or by reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to perform the recited function; or
(d) Present a sufficient showing that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, does not apply because the limitation does not recite a function or does recite a function along with sufficient structure, material or acts to perform that function.
7. As to claim 2, the claim limitation “an input unit configured…, a post analysis unit configured…, a score calculation unit configured.. and an output unit configured to…has been evaluated under the three-prong test set forth in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, but the result is inconclusive. Thus, it is unclear whether this limitation should be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim language invoke the mean plus function without proper structure. The boundaries of this claim limitation are ambiguous; therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
In response to this rejection, applicant must clarify whether this limitation should be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. Mere assertion regarding applicant’s intent to invoke or not invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph is insufficient. Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim to clearly invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, by reciting “means” or a generic placeholder for means, or by reciting “step.” The “means,” generic placeholder, or “step” must be modified by functional language, and must not be modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function;
(b) Present a sufficient showing that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, should apply because the claim limitation recites a function to be performed and does not recite sufficient structure, material, or acts to perform that function;
(c) Amend the claim to clearly avoid invoking 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, by deleting the function or by reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to perform the recited function; or
(d) Present a sufficient showing that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, does not apply because the limitation does not recite a function or does recite a function along with sufficient structure, material or acts to perform that function.
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.
8. Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) 1 does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because claim 8 is program. Program is a software.
9. Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 (See MPEP 2106)
Claims 1-14 are directed to a system which belongs to a statutory class.
As to claim 1, 4-8 and 12-14
Step 2A, Prong One:
Claims 1 and 7, the limitation “to perform analysis for estimating at least one of 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 on a billing status of the user related to the predetermined service, on the basis of the data of the predetermined post” which is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation by Mental Process, but for the recitation of generic computer components. Nothing in the claim element precludes the steps from practically being performed in the human mind. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation by mental process, but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
The limitation “sum up scores and specify a user with a high score equal to or greater than a predetermined value, on the basis of a result of the estimation” is a mathematical computation based on mental process (abstract idea).
The “input unit” and “output unit” are the computer software components which generic functions to receive and output the data.
As to claims 2-3
Step 2A, Prong One:
Claims 1 and 7, the limitation “to perform analysis for estimating at least one of 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 on a billing status of the user related to the predetermined service, on the basis of the data of the predetermined post” which is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation by Mental Process, but for the recitation of generic computer components. Nothing in the claim element precludes the steps from practically being performed in the human mind. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation by mental process, but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
The limitation “sum up scores and specify a user with a high score equal to or greater than a predetermined value, on the basis of a result of the estimation” is a mathematical computation based on mental process (abstract idea).
The limitation “input unit and output unit” is computer tools for inputting and outputting data.
As to claims 4 and 12, the limitation “the post analysis unit estimates a service use history of the user by acquiring the oldest post indicating that the user uses a predetermined service” is a mental process which abstract idea.
As to claims 5 and 13, the limitation “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, and estimates influence of the user by summing up the impressions” is a mental process which abstract idea.
As to claims 6 and 14, the limitation “the post analysis unit acquires data of a post indicating a billing status of a user over a predetermined period from present to past, and thereby estimates the billing status of the user” is mental process which is abstract idea.
As to claim 8, the limitation “a program causing a computer to perform the step of claim 7” the program is generic computer algorithm which is not special program
As to claims 2-3 and 9-11
Step 2A, Prong One:
Claim 2, the limitation “a post analysis unit configured to perform analysis for estimating at least one of 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 on a billing status of the user related to the predetermined service, on the basis of the data of the predetermined post” which is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation by Mental Process, but for the recitation of generic computer components. Nothing in the claim element precludes the steps from practically being performed in the human mind. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation by mental process, but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
The limitation “a score calculation unit configured to sum up scores and specify a user with a high score equal to or greater than a predetermined value, on the basis of a result of the estimation” is a mathematical computation based on mental process (abstract idea).
The limitation “input unit and output unit” is computer tools for inputting and outputting data.
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.
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.
10. Claim(s) 1, 4-8 and 12-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over in view of Heppe et al. (Pub. No. US 217/0195125 A1) in view of Gupta et al. (Pub. No. US 2015/0127591 A1).
As to claim 1. (Original) Heppe 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:
an input unit configured to input data of a predetermined post related to a predetermined service on the Web (user post) (paragraph 0023);
a post analysis unit configured to perform analysis for estimating at least one of 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 (users has different levels of “karma” based in part on their prior activity, and some users at any instant of time have the ability to “moderate” comments (posts) of others, increasing or decreasing their score an dadding descriptors such a normal, offtopic, flamebail, troll redundan…) (paragraph 0008), and data on a billing status of the user related to the predetermined service, on the basis of the data of the predetermined post.
Heppe does not explicitly disclose a score calculation unit configured to sum up scores and specify a user with a high score equal to or greater than a predetermined value, on the basis of a result of the estimation and an output unit configured to output data of a specific post of the user with the high score. However, Heppe discloses a score calculation unit configured to sum up scores and specify a user with a high score equal to or greater than a predetermined value, on the basis of a result of the estimation and an output unit configured to output data of a specific post of the user with the high score (if the user status is a numerical value or can be snapped to a numerical value, one candidate numerical algorithm is to map the user status (or its mapped numerical value) to a range such that -D sub max<D<D.sub max, where D sub min is not greater that the maximum…) (paragraph 0094). On the other hand, Gupta discloses a score calculation unit configured to sum up scores and specify a user with a high score equal to or greater than a predetermined value, on the basis of a result of the estimation (… then calculates the sentiment score for a particular aspect of a particular topic as the same of the individual sentiment scores for each of the social posts…) (paragraph 0062) and an output unit configured to output data of a specific post of the user with the high score (user interface 112 that displays a comparison between two related topic…) (paragraph 0063). This suggests the claim language of a score calculation unit configured to sum up scores and specify a user with a high score equal to or greater than a predetermined value, on the basis of a result of the estimation and an output unit configured to output data of a specific post of the user with the high score and an output unit configured to output data of a specific post of the user with the high score.
As to claim 4. (Currently Amended) The highly influential user search device according to claim 1, wherein the post analysis unit estimates a service use history of the user by acquiring the oldest post indicating that the user uses a predetermined service (in claim 1, the analysis required at least one of the three requirements (history, influent and billing), the examination was based on influent of the post, therefore, this limitation is not being considered) (no examination is required and being made based on the optional language of the claim).
As to claim 5. (Currently Amended) Gupta he highly influential user search device according to claim 1, 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, and estimates influence of the user by summing up the impressions (… then calculates the sentiment score for a particular aspect of a particular topic as the same of the individual sentiment scores for each of the social posts…) (paragraph 0062) and an output unit configured to output data of a specific post of the user with the high score (user interface 112 that displays a comparison between two related topic…) (paragraph 0063).
As to claim 6. (Currently Amended) 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, and thereby estimates the billing status of the user (in claim 1, the analysis required at least one of the three requirements (history, influent and billing), the examination was based on influent of the post, therefore, this limitation is not being considered) (no examination is required and being made based on the optional language of the claim).
Claim 7 is rejected under the same reason as to claim 1, Gupta discloses a method (method) (paragraph 0013).
As to claim 8 (Original) Gupta discloses a program causing a computer to perform the method according to claim 7 (program) (paragraph 0131).
Claim 12 is not being considered under the same reason as to claim 4.
Claim 13 is rejected under the same reason as to claim 5.
Claim 14 is not being considered under the same reason as to claim 6.
11. Claim(s) 2-3 and 9-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over in view of Gupta et al. (Pub. No. US 2015/0127591 A1) in view of Bedell (Patent No. 6,622,128 B1).
As to claim 2. (Original) Gupta discloses 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:
an input unit configured to input data of a predetermined post related to a predetermined service on the Web (user post) (paragraph 0023);
a score calculation unit configured to sum up scores and specify a user with a high score equal to or greater than a predetermined value, on the basis of a result of the estimation(… then calculates the sentiment score for a particular aspect of a particular topic as the sum of the individual sentiment scores for each of the social posts…) (paragraph 0062); and
an output unit configured to output data of a specific post of the user with the high score (user interface 112 that displays a comparison between two related topic…) (paragraph 0063).
Gupta does not explicitly disclose a post analysis unit configured to perform analysis 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 on a billing status of the user related to the predetermined service, on the basis of the data of the predetermined post. However, Bedell discloses a post analysis unit configured to perform analysis 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 on a billing status of the user related to the predetermined service, on the basis of the data of the predetermined post (main components of each an analysis include: 1. History of relationship, attitudes and guidelines; 2. The advent, impact and influence of hourly billing; 3. a more practical interpretation of the tripartite of outside counsel guidelines; and the development of audits and their impact…) (col. 2, lines 10-18). This suggest the analysis include number of components such estimating at least one of 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 on a billing status of the user related to the predetermined service, on the basis of the data of the predetermined post. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective fling date of the instant application to modify teaching of Gupta to include estimating at least one of 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 on a billing status of the user related to the predetermined service, on the basis of the data of the predetermined post as disclosed by Bedelll in order to suggest post or user based on analysis.
As to claim 3. (Original) Bedell l discloses the highly influential user search device according to claim 2, wherein the post analysis unit normalizes the data of a service use history of a user related to the predetermined service, the data on influence of the user related to the predetermined service, and the data on a billing status of the user related to the predetermined service, respectively (main components of each an analysis include: 1. History of relationship, attitudes and guidelines; 2. The advent, impact and influence of hourly billing; 3. a more practical interpretation of the tripartite of outside counsel guidelines; and the development of audits and their impact…) (col. 2, lines 10-18).
As to claim 9. (New) Bedell discloses the highly influential user search device according to claim 2 wherein, the post analysis unit estimates a service use history of the user by acquiring the oldest post indicating that the user uses a predetermined service (main components of each an analysis include: 1. History of relationship, attitudes and guidelines; 2. The advent, impact and influence of hourly billing; 3. a more practical interpretation of the tripartite of outside counsel guidelines; and the development of audits and their impact…) (col. 2, lines 10-18).
As to claim 10. (New) Gupta discloses the highly influential user search device according to claim 2 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, and estimates influence of the user by summing up the impressions (… then calculates the sentiment score for a particular aspect of a particular topic as the same of the individual sentiment scores for each of the social posts…) (paragraph 0062) and an output unit configured to output data of a specific post of the user with the high score (user interface 112 that displays a comparison between two related topic…) (paragraph 0063).
As to claim 11. (New) Bedell discloses the highly influential user search device according to claim 2 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, and thereby estimates the billing status of the user (main components of each an analysis include: 1. History of relationship, attitudes and guidelines; 2. The advent, impact and influence of hourly billing; 3. a more practical interpretation of the tripartite of outside counsel guidelines; and the development of audits and their impact…) (col. 2, lines 10-18).
Conclusion
12. 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