DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Response to Arguments
35 U.S.C. §103
2. Applicant's arguments, see Remarks pp. 7 -8, filed February 4th 2026, with
respect to the rejections of claims 2 - 19 under 35 U.S.C. §103 have been fully
considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that recommended posts be presented to a user and only the selected one of the recommended post is then posted to the conversation thread. In contrast the Nygaard reference teaches automatic insertion of a product recommendation to a conversation thread based on analysis of posts by users in the conversation thread, where the post mentions a product. Nowhere does Nygaard show or suggest presenting recommended post to a user, receiving selection of a recommended post, or posing a selected recommended post to the conversation thread as required by Applicant’s independent claims.
Examiner respectfully disagrees and submits the Nygaard reference teaches applicant’s claimed invention. Nygaard in paragraph [0066] teaches “For example, if three different items are recommended, but one item is recommended at strength 10 while the others are at strength 1, only the strongest recommendation may be presented”, also in paragraph [0049], Nygaard teaches, “include choosing to present recommendations after a certain number of responses have been received, after a certain number of items have been identified, after a certain strength of recommendation has been reached (e.g., several users have agreed on a recommended product), or after an authority has weighed in.” Responses in the conversation threads are suggestions by the users and the final recommendation presented are chosen from the cumulative suggestions. Fig. 4 of the Nygaard reference is illustrative of the claimed embodiment. Step (410) post a question for recommendations for basketball shoes, Step (420a) to (420c) posts recommendations including Adidas, Nikes and Air Jordans. Step 430 recommends Nike Air Jordan on eBay. Nike Air Jordan is thus “the selected recommended post to the conversation thread” as claimed by applicants invention.
The statutory rejection is maintained.
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. §103
3. 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.
3. 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:
a. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art
b. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue
c. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art
d. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating
obviousness or nonobviousness
Claims 2 – 4, 9 – 13, 18 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nygaard et al. (United States Patent Publication Number 20150088684), hereinafter Nygaard in view of Allen et al. (United States Patent Publication Number 20160156578 ), hereinafter referred to as Allen.
Regarding claim 2 Nygaard teaches a method for recommending a post, (Figs. 8, 9, 10 & 11 a method of social media-based recommendations [0010] – [0013]) the method (Figs. 8, 9, 10 & 11 a method of social media-based recommendations [0010] – [0013]) comprising: parsing two or more posts (the recognition module 220 can parse the request for recommendation to identify a category of the request [0035]), (The recognition module 220 can also parse the responses to identify recommended items [0036]) (For example, the recommendation request and responses may be parsed on the client machine 110 or 112 to identify the category of the request and the recommended items. [0046], [0056], [0057] and [0078]) in a conversation thread; (ABS., the original question and the responses may form a conversation thread) (Figs. 5 – 7, conversation threads [0009], [0019], [0054], [0063], [0065], [0074] and [0082]) based at least in part on the parsed two or more posts, (the recognition module 220 can parse the request for recommendation to identify a category of the request [0035]), (The recognition module 220 can also parse the responses to identify recommended items [0036]) (For example, the recommendation request and responses may be parsed on the client machine 110 or 112 to identify the category of the request and the recommended items. [0046], [0056], [0057] and [0078]) generating one or more recommended posts for presentation to a user (A plurality of recommendations may be presented … For example, if three different items are recommended, but one item is recommended at strength 10 while the others are at strength 1, only the strongest recommendation may be presented. [0066]) (if the first detected request regards a car, and other users begin to respond with comments that identify specific cars, a recommendation for a car may be generated and presented to the user. [0069]) as candidates to be posted in the conversation thread, (For example, the recommendation may appear as a response to a user's recommendation request in the conversation thread between the users. In some example embodiments, the recommendation appears as though the recommender were a participant in the thread. As another example, the recommendation may appear at the end of the thread, with new responses from users pushing the recommendation down. As a further example, the recommendation may appear at the bottom of the screen or to one side of the screen, with the position being unaffected by the progress of the thread. [0065]) wherein the one or more recommended posts semantically match at least one of the two or more posts; (In operation 940, a recommendation for the item is presented. For example, a comment including information about the item can be added to the end of a conversation thread that includes the request and the batch of user recommendations. [0074]) and based at least in part on determining (determine if the recommendation was followed. [0080]) the user(the user receiving the recommendation [0078]) has selected one of the one or more recommended posts, (each detected recommendation is considered, [0077]) causing to be posted, as a successive post in the conversation thread, the selected one of the one or more recommended posts. (For example, the recommendation may appear as a response to a user's recommendation request in the conversation thread between the users. In some example embodiments, the recommendation appears as though the recommender were a participant in the thread. As another example, the recommendation may appear at the end of the thread, with new responses from users pushing the recommendation down. As a further example, the recommendation may appear at the bottom of the screen or to one side of the screen, with the position being unaffected by the progress of the thread. [0065])
Nygaard does not fully disclose generating a subset of the parsed two or more posts that excludes one of the parsed two or more posts that is unrelated to the conversation thread;
Allen teaches generating (generates [0064]) a subset (subset [0066]) of the parsed (parsing with SVO and Sentinent [0092]) two or more posts (ABS., parent post, child posts) (Figs., 4, 6, 8 – 11, 14 parent posts [0009], [0011], [0013] – [0016] and [0019]), (Figs., 3, 6, 9, and 11 [0008], [0011], [0014] and [0016]); main post [0093]; response post [0094]) that excludes one of the parsed two or more posts that is unrelated (Fig. 14, (1420) Compare selected post data (e.g., relevance data, etc.) to ingestion thresholds (e.g., minimum relevance score, etc.) [0114], (1440) Ingest post data based on comparison? [0113], (1460) “NO” Discard selected post data [0114]) to the conversation thread; (Figs. 3 – 14, thread [0043])
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Nygaard to incorporate the teachings of Allen whereby generating a subset of the parsed two or more posts that excludes one of the parsed two or more posts that is unrelated to the conversation thread. By doing so the process detern1ines as to whether there are more
related posts that need to be processed (decision 785). If there are more related posts that need to be processed, then decision 785 branches to the 'yes' branch which loops back to step 725 to select and process the next related post. This looping continues
until all related posts have been processed, at which point decision 785 branches to the 'no' branch. Allen [0072]
Claim 11 corresponds to claim 2 and is rejected accordingly
Regarding claim 3 Nygaard in view of Allen the method of claim 2,
Nygaard as modified wherein: parsing the two or more posts comprises: (the recognition module 220 can parse the request for recommendation to identify a category of the request [0035]), (The recognition module 220 can also parse the responses to identify recommended items [0036]) (For example, the recommendation request and responses may be parsed on the client machine 110 or 112 to identify the category of the request and the recommended items. [0046], [0056], [0057] and [text of the comments may be parsed 0078]) determining whether at least one of the two or more posts (ABS., requests for recommendation) (requests for recommendation [0031], [0035], [0055] and [0074], and comments [0025], [0038], [0048], [0054], [0057], [0063], [0069] – [0072], [0078]) contains a text string; (text of the comments [0078]) and in response to determining that at least one of the two or more posts (ABS., requests for recommendation) (requests for recommendation [0031], [0035], [0055] and [0074], and comments [0025], [0038], [0048], [0054], [0057], [0063], [0069] – [0072], [0078])contains a text string, (text of the comments [0078]) performing natural language processing (natural-language parser's interpretation, [0057]) on the text string; (text of the comments [0078]) and generating the one or more recommended posts (generate a recommendation for an item based on the request for a recommendation and the responses to the request received from the client machines 110 or 112. [0037]) for presentation to the user (the user receiving the recommendation [0078]) comprises: generating a query (the recommendation request and responses may be parsed on the client machine 110 or 112 to identify the category of the request and the recommended items. Based on the category, the recommended items, user data, and the like, a query can be generated. [0046]) based on the natural language processing (natural-language parser's interpretation, [0057]) of the text string; (text of the comments [0078]) and forwarding the query to a database (The
generated query can be transmitted to the application server 118 by the communication module 310 for processing. [0046] e.g. "Should I buy a new car or a used one?", [0061] to retrieve a candidate text string, (one or more search results [0046]) such as “retrieved candidate string” wherein one of the one or more recommended posts is generated (One or more results for the search query can be presented to the user as recommendations. [0046]) based on the retrieved candidate text string(one or more search results [0046]) such as “retrieved candidate string”
Claim 12 corresponds to claim 3 and is rejected accordingly
Regarding claim 4 Nygaard in view of Allen the method of claim 3,
Nygaard as modified wherein one or more trained machine learning models (Machine learning algorithms [0048]) are used to perform the natural language processing (a natural-language parser's interpretation, [0057]) and generate the query (a query can be generated. [0046])
Claim 13 corresponds to claim 4 and is rejected accordingly
Regarding claim 9 Nygaard in view of Allen the method of claim 2,
Nygaard as modified further teaches comprises determining a location (Based on recommendations by other users and the user's location in New York City, a particular shoe at a particular shoe store in New York City can be recommended [0020])
associated with the conversation thread (ABS., conversation thread) (Figs. 5 – 7 conversation thread [0009], [0019], [0054], [0055], [0063], [0065], [0074])
Claim 18 corresponds to claim 9 and is rejected accordingly
Regarding claim 10 Nygaard in view of Allen the method of claim 2,
Nygaard as modified further teaches wherein: the conversation thread(ABS., conversation thread) (Figs. 5 – 7 conversation thread [0009], [0019], [0054], [0055], [0063], [0065], [0074]) begins at a first time, (A batch of comments is a set of one or more comments that occur within a set period of time from each other. [0048]) the two or more posts are posted at respective times after the first time; (For example, if the
timeout period is five minutes, then as long as fewer than five minutes passes between responses, the batch will continue to grow. [0048]) and the selected one of the one or more recommended posts is posted at a second time after the first time (For example, the time period between the presentation of the request and the first response may be greater than the time period between the first response and the second response, indicating that the thread is gaining momentum. An increase in the time period may be detected as a decrease in momentum, and a recommendation presented
when the decrease in momentum is detected [0048]) and the respective times (To illustrate, seven comments may be received with periods between them of thirty seconds to three minutes. Five minutes after the seventh comment is received, a recommendation may be presented. An hour later, another comment may be received, with no subsequent comments. Five minutes after this comment, another recommendation may be presented. [0048])
Claim 19 corresponds to claim 10 and is rejected accordingly
Claims 5 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nygaard et al. (United States Patent Publication Number 20150088684), hereinafter Nygaard in view of Allen et al. (United States Patent Publication Number 20160156578 ), hereinafter referred to as Allen and in further view of Rounthwaite et al., (United States Patent Publication Number 20100325133) hereinafter Rounthwaite
Regarding claim 5 Nygaard in view of Allen teaches the method of claim 4,
Nygaard as modified further teaches wherein the one or more trained machine learning models (Machine learning algorithms [0048])
Nygaard does not fully disclose are trained to learn vector representations of words, and the vector representations are used to compute semantical similarity between the text string and the candidate text string.
Rounthwaite teaches are trained to learn vector representations of words, and the vector representations are used to compute semantical similarity between the text string and the candidate text string (Fig. 1, 3, 4 & 7 example vectors that can represent data used to determine a measure of similarity between a pair of queries [0009], [0011], [0012] and [0015], [0018], [0019], [0024] – [0026], [0031][, [0034], [0038], [0052] and [0056])
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Nygaard to incorporate the teachings of Rounthwaite wherein are trained to learn vector representations of words, and the vector representations are used to compute semantical similarity between the text string and the candidate text string. By analyzing the click distribution over the search results with respect to the two queries, it can be
ascertained that the two queries model a substantially similar information need/goal of users, and thus the two queries can be given a high measure of similarity (e.g., labeled as substantially similar queries). Rounthwaite [0006]
Claim 14 corresponds to claim 5 and is rejected accordingly
Claims 6 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nygaard et al. (United States Patent Publication Number 20150088684), hereinafter Nygaard in view of Allen et al. (United States Patent Publication Number 20160156578 ), hereinafter referred to as Allen and in further view of Ekaterina Solntseva (United States Patent Publication Number 2014/0081620) hereinafter Solntseva
Regarding claim 6 Nygaard in view of Allen teaches the method of claim 2,
Nygaard as modified further teaches causing one of the one or more recommended posts (A plurality of recommendations may be presented … For example, if three different items are recommended, but one item is recommended at strength 10 while the others are at strength 1, only the strongest recommendation may be presented. [0066]) (if the first detected request regards a car, and other users begin to respond with comments that identify specific cars, a recommendation for a car may be generated and presented to the user. [0069])
Nygaard does not fully disclose further comprising: determining a first language associated with a profile of the user; determining whether a post in the conversation thread includes a text string in a second language different from the first language;] and in response to determining that the post includes the text string in the second language, to include a text string in the second language, wherein the text string in the second language is presented together with a translation into the first language of the text string in the second language.
Solntseva teaches determining a first language (ABS., one. Original text in a first language or source language) (first language [0039]) EXAMPLE German text [0011] associated with a profile of the user; (user [0021]) determining whether a post (textual message [0035]) in the conversation thread (thread of conversation [0030]) includes a text string in a second language (second language or target language [0039]) different from the first language; (ABS., one. Original text in a first language or source language) (first language [0039]) EXAMPLE German text [0011] and in response to determining that the post(textual message [0035]) includes the text string in the second language, (Spanish [0031], English [0058]) (second language or target language [0039]) to include a text string in the second language, (Spanish [0031], English [0058]) (second language or target language [0039]) wherein the text string in the second language (Spanish [0031], English [0058]) (second language or target language [0039]) is presented together with a translation (Therefore, it is more reasonable in some circumstances to render a translation and retain some of the words in a first or original language and then to give a user a choice of variants of translation from the subject area corresponding to a context. [0061] ) into the first language (ABS., one. Original text in a first language or source language) (first language [0039]) EXAMPLE German text [0011] of the text string in the second language. (Spanish [0031], English [0058]) (second language or target language [0039])
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Nygaard to incorporate the teachings of Solntseva wherein determining a first language associated with a profile of the user; determining whether a post in the conversation thread includes a text string in a second language different from the first language; and in response to determining that the post includes the text string in the second language, to include a text string in the second language, wherein the text string in the second language is presented together with a translation into the first language of the text string in the second language. By doing so advantageously, the method of translation with the help of translation and other types of dictionaries is most convenient in the circumstance where a device is without Internet access or when the Internet connection costs too much. Solntseva [0032]
Claim 15 corresponds to claim 6 and is rejected accordingly
Claims 7, 8, 16 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nygaard et al. (United States Patent Publication Number 20150088684), hereinafter Nygaard in view of Allen et al. (United States Patent Publication Number 20160156578 ), hereinafter referred to as Allen and in further view of Liu et al., (United States Patent Publication Number 20170308589) hereinafter Liu
Regarding claim 7 Nygaard in view of Allen teaches the method of claim 2, Nygaard as modified further teaches wherein: parsing the two or more posts (the recognition module 220 can parse the request for recommendation to identify a category of the request [0035]), (The recognition module 220 can also parse the responses to identify recommended items [0036]) (For example, the recommendation request and responses may be parsed on the client machine 110 or 112 to identify the category of the request and the recommended items. [0046], [0056], [0057] and [text of the comments may be parsed 0078])
Nygaard does not fully disclose comprises: determining whether at least one of the two or more posts contains a first image; and identifying one or more content categories associated with the first image; and generating the one or more recommended posts for presentation to the user comprises retrieving a second image associated with the one or more content categories, and providing the retrieved second image as one of the one or more recommended posts.
Liu teaches determining whether at least one of the two or more posts contains a first image; (generated in response to the check-in post in Montreal, Quebec with the
text "Just landed! What should I do?", where the recommendation list shows an image of Montreal, [0064]) and identifying one or more content categories (for each identified object, content associated with the object. The content may include one or
more of a rating associated with the object, an address associated with the object, a snippet associated with the object, a social context associated with the object, an image associated with the object, other suitable content associated with the object, or any combination thereof [0065]) associated with (associated with [0065]) the first image; (an image of Montreal, [0064]) and generating the one or more recommended posts (a recommendation list generated in response to the Heading to Martha's Vineyard next weekend. What should I do while I'm there? [0072], [0073]) for presentation to the user (Fig. 6B user “Stephanie” [0064]) comprises retrieving a second image (any one of Fig. 6B, image of “Slice of Life”, image of “The Black Dog Tavern” and image of “Aquinnah Cliffs” [0012], [0065]) associated with (associated with [0065]) the one or more content categories, (for each identified object, content associated with the object. The content may include one or more of a rating associated with the object, an address associated with the object, a snippet associated with the object, a social context associated with the object, an image associated with the object, other suitable content associated with the object, or any combination thereof [0065]) and providing the retrieved second image(any one of Fig. 6B, image of “Slice of Life”, image of “The Black Dog Tavern” and image of “Aquinnah Cliffs” [0012], [0065]) as one of the one or more recommended posts (the comment that recommend ethe particular object [0066])
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Nygaard to incorporate the teachings of Liu wherein determining whether at least one of the two or more posts contains a first image; and identifying one or more content categories associated with the first image; and generating the one or more recommended posts for presentation to the user comprises retrieving a second image associated with the one or more content categories, and providing the retrieved second image as one of the one or more recommended posts. By doing so the online social network could provide a structured, easy-to-use interface for a user to review and explore recommendations
provided in response to a query in their posts. Liu [0050]
Claim 16 corresponds to claim 7 and is rejected accordingly
Regarding claim 8 Nygaard in view of Allen teaches the method of claim 7, Nygaard does not fully disclose wherein the retrieved second image is retrieved from a local device of the user, a social media profile associated with the user, or a remote server.
Liu teaches wherein the retrieved second image (any one of Fig. 6B, image of “Slice of Life”, image of “The Black Dog Tavern” and image of “Aquinnah Cliffs” [0012], [0065] is retrieved from a local device of the user, a social media profile associated with the user, or a remote server (one or more images (which may be HTML-linked) [0085])
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Nygaard to incorporate the teachings of Liu wherein the retrieved second image is retrieved from a local device of the user, a social media profile associated with the user, or a remote server.
Claim 17 corresponds to claim 8 and is rejected accordingly
Conclusion
4. 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 extension fee 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 date of this
final action.
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.
5. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the
examiner should be directed to Kweku Halm whose telephone number is (469)295-
9144. The examiner can normally be reached on 9:00AM - 5:30PM Mon - Thur. If
attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's
supervisor, Sanjiv Shah can be reached on (571) 272 - 4098. The fax phone
number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-
8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the
Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published
applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information
for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more
information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have
questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center
(EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer
Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-
9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/KWEKU WILLIAM HALM/Examiner, Art Unit 2166
/SANJIV SHAH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2166