DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
Claims 1-21 are currently pending and have been examined in this application. This communication is the first action on the merits.
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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 10, 15, and 17-20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 1 and 15: “a second graphical element corresponding to the other users content” should read “a second graphical element corresponding to the one or more other users’ content”;
Claim 1: “grouping and organizing the shared content” should read “grouping and organizing the analyzed content”;
Claim 10: “one or more first hyperlink” should read “one or more first hyperlinks”;
Claims 17-20: “The change management system of…” should read “The system of…”
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 9-12 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 9 recites the limitations "the first and second graphical elements" and "the one or more first graphical elements and the one or more second graphical elements." There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the one or more first graphical elements" and "the one or more second graphical elements." Though claim 9 recites these limitations, which claim 10 is dependent upon, there is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in claim 9.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the one or more first graphical elements." There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Examiner notes that claim 12 recites the limitation of “one or more third graphical elements,” however, there is insufficient antecedent basis for “the one or more first graphical elements” in claim 11, which claim 12 is dependent upon, and none of the claims to which claim 12 is dependent upon, directly or indirectly (i.e., claims 8 and 11), recite any “second” graphical elements.
Claim 19 recites the limitation "the… third graphical elements." There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Examiner believes that this claim was intended to depend from claim 17 rather than claim 16.
Claim 20 recites the limitations "the first modified social media content" and "the second modified social media content." There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim. Claim 20 further recites the limitation "the first to fourth graphical elements." There is insufficient antecedent basis for the third and fourth graphical elements in the claim. Examiner believes that this claim was intended to depend from claim 19 rather than claim 16, which was intended to depend from claim 17 rather than claim 16.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claim 1 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,131,391. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because Claim 1 is generic to all that is recited in Claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,131,391. That is, Claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,131,391 falls entirely within the scope of Claim 1 or, in other words, Claim 1 is anticipated by Claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,131,391.
Claim 1 of the instant application and Claim 1 of the Patent are exemplary. The subject matter of Claims 2-21 of the instant application is similarly disclosed by Claims 2-21 of the Patent.
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 1-8 and 10-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1
Claims 1-8, 10-14, and 21 are directed to a process. Claims 15-20 are directed to a machine. As such, each claim is directed to a statutory category of invention.
Step 2A Prong 1
The examiner has identified independent Claim 15 as the claim that represents the claimed invention for analysis and is similar to independent Claims 1 and 8.
Independent Claim 15 recites the following abstract ideas: “dynamically displaying aggregated social media content : display a date selector configured to retrieve an input from a user, the input comprising information about a selected date of interest to the user; retrieve first memory cues comprising first social media content associated with the user ; display the user content containing the retrieved first social media content within a first portion ; retrieve second memory cues comprising second social media content associated with one or more other users ; display the other users content containing the retrieved second social media content within a second portion ; and apply a content organization processto dynamically display aggregated social media content , the process comprising: a) analyzing the retrieved first and second social media content based on time stamps or event dates; b) determining the chronological order of the analyzed content; c) grouping and organizing the analyzed content based on temporal proximity and relevance to the selected date; and d) generating a visual representation of the first and second social media content along a visual timeline axis to enable a plurality of users to modify the first and second social media content, the plurality of users comprising the user and the one or more other users, and the memory cue content representing a co-owned post displayed
The limitations, as drafted, are a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, relates to managing relationships or interactions between people including social activities (i.e., dynamically displaying aggregated social media content: display a date selector configured to retrieve an input from a user, the input comprising information about a selected date of interest to the user; retrieve first memory cues comprising first social media content associated with the user; display the user content containing the retrieved first social media content within a first portion; retrieve second memory cues comprising second social media content associated with one or more other users; display the other users content containing the retrieved second social media content within a second portion; and apply a content organization process to dynamically display aggregated social media content, the process comprising: a) analyzing the retrieved first and second social media content based on time stamps or event dates; b) determining the chronological order of the analyzed content; c) grouping and organizing the analyzed content based on temporal proximity and relevance to the selected date; and d) generating a visual representation of the first and second social media content along a visual timeline axis to enable a plurality of users to modify the first and second social media content, the plurality of users comprising the user and the one or more other users, and the memory cue content representing a co-owned post displayed), but for the recitation of generic computer components (i.e., a system comprising a server, coupled to a processor, and configured to execute instructions, a graphical user interface (GUI), one or more social media services, a first graphical element, a second graphical element, a computer screen, and automatically applying a process). If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, relates to managing relationships or interactions between people including social activities, but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas.
Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong 2
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Limitations that are not indicative of integration into a practical application include: (1) Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(f)), (2) Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05(g)), (3) Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (MPEP 2106.05(h)). In particular, the claim recites the additional elements of a system comprising a server, coupled to a processor, and configured to execute instructions, a graphical user interface (GUI), one or more social media services, a first graphical element, a second graphical element, a computer screen, and automatically applying a process. The computer hardware is recited at a high level of generality (i.e., generic computers displaying, receiving, and retrieving information, generic social media services for retrieving information, generic GUI and graphical elements for receiving and displaying information, and automatically executing a process using a generic computer) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Accordingly, these additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, since they do not involve improvements to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field (MPEP 2106.05(a)), they do not apply the abstract idea with, or by use of, a particular machine (MPEP 2106.05(b)), they do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (MPEP 2106.05(c)), and they do not apply or use the abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking its use to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP 2106.05(e)). Therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea without a practical application.
Step 2B
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, they do not add significantly more (also known as an “inventive concept”) to the exception. The additional elements of using computer hardware (a system comprising a server, coupled to a processor, and configured to execute instructions, a graphical user interface (GUI), one or more social media services, a first graphical element, a second graphical element, a computer screen, and automatically applying a process) amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. Therefore, the claim is not patent-eligible.
Dependent claim 10 recites a “web page,” which is a generic interface element. Dependent claims 10 and 12 recite “hyperlink,” which is a generic interface element. Dependent claim 13 recites a “database,” which is a generic storage component. The additional elements are generic computers/technology used to implement the abstract idea, and they do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, nor are they sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea when considered both individually and as an ordered combination.
Dependent claims 2-7, 11, 14, and 16-21 do not include any additional elements beyond those identified above. They further define the abstract idea that is present in their respective independent claims and hence are abstract for at least the reasons presented above. As such, they do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, nor are they sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea when considered both individually and as an ordered combination.
Therefore, dependent claims 2-7, 10-14, and 16-21 are directed to an abstract idea, and do not include additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, or that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Thus, the aforementioned claims are not patent-eligible.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-8 and 10-21 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 set forth in this Office action, and if the 112(b) and double patenting rejections set forth in this Office action are overcome.
Claim 9 would be allowable if the 112(b) and double patenting rejections set forth in this Office action are overcome, AND if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Hofer, in combination with Holmes and Mallipudi, teaches displaying a date selector configured to retrieve an input from a user, the input comprising information about a selected date of interest to the user; retrieving first content associated with the user from one or more social media services; displaying a first graphical element corresponding to the user content containing the retrieved first content within a first portion of the GUI on a computer screen; retrieving second content associated with one or more other users from the one or more social media services; displaying a second graphical element corresponding to the other users content containing the retrieved second content within a second portion of the GUI on a computer screen; and automatically applying a content organization process, executed by a processor, to dynamically display aggregated content within the GUI, the process comprising: a) analyzing the retrieved first and second content based on time stamps or event dates; b) determining the chronological order of the analyzed content; c) grouping and organizing the shared content based on temporal proximity and relevance to the selected date; and d) generating a visual representation of the first and second content along a visual timeline axis.
However, Hofer, along with the other references relied upon, does not teach retrieving first memory cues comprising first social media content associated with the user; retrieving second memory cues comprising second social media content associated with one or more other users; and d) generating a visual representation of the first and second social media content to enable a plurality of users to modify the first and second social media content.
The closest NPL, “Extraction and Interactive Exploration of Knowledge from Aggregated News and Social Media Content,” teaches a platform that aggregates large archives of digital content from multiple stakeholders, such as user comments from news media, blogs, and social media platforms, and displays an interactive dashboard with information regarding the aggregated content. However, it does not teach grouping and organizing the content based on temporal proximity and relevance to a selected date, and representing the aggregated content along a timeline axis, or enabling users to modify the content.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon, considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure or directed to the state of art, is listed on the enclosed PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KARMA EL-CHANTI whose telephone number is (571)272-3404. The examiner can normally be reached T-Sa 10am-6pm ET.
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, Sarah Monfeldt can be reached at (571)270-1833. 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.
/KARMA A EL-CHANTI/Examiner, Art Unit 3629 /SARAH M MONFELDT/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3629