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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 1-20 are objected to because of the following informalities: Claims 1-20 are numbered using Roman numerals. Claims are to be numbered consecutively in Arabic numerals (37 CFR 1.75 (f), MPEP 608.01(i)). Appropriate correction is required.
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 filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual 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/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim 1 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12238359. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 1 is generic to a species or sub-genus claimed in patent claim 1, i.e., the entire scope of the patent claim 1 falls within the scope of the claim 1 of the application.
Claim 2 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 2 of U.S. Patent No. 12238359. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 2 is generic to a species or sub-genus claimed in patent claim 2, i.e., the entire scope of the patent claim 2 falls within the scope of the claim 2 of the application.
Claim 6 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 6 of U.S. Patent No. 12238359. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 6 is generic to a species or sub-genus claimed in patent claim 6, i.e., the entire scope of the patent claim 6 falls within the scope of the claim 6 of the application.
Claim 8 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 8 of U.S. Patent No. 12238359. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 8 is generic to a species or sub-genus claimed in patent claim 8, i.e., the entire scope of the patent claim 8 falls within the scope of the claim 8 of the application.
Claim 7 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 21 of U.S. Patent No. 12238359. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 7 is generic to a species or sub-genus claimed in patent claim 21, i.e., the entire scope of the patent claim 21 falls within the scope of the claim 7of the application.
Claim 9 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 21 of U.S. Patent No. 12238359. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 9 is generic to a species or sub-genus claimed in patent claim 21, i.e., the entire scope of the patent claim 21 falls within the scope of the claim 9of the application.
Claim 11 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 11 of U.S. Patent No. 12238359. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 11 is generic to a species or sub-genus claimed in patent claim 11, i.e., the entire scope of the patent claim 11 falls within the scope of the claim 11 of the application.
Claim 12 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 12 of U.S. Patent No. 12238359. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 12 is generic to a species or sub-genus claimed in patent claim 12, i.e., the entire scope of the patent claim 12 falls within the scope of the claim 12 of the application.
Claim 13 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 13 of U.S. Patent No. 12238359. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 13 is generic to a species or sub-genus claimed in patent claim 13, i.e., the entire scope of the patent claim 13 falls within the scope of the claim 13 of the application.
Claim 14 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 14 of U.S. Patent No. 12238359. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 14 is generic to a species or sub-genus claimed in patent claim 14, i.e., the entire scope of the patent claim 14 falls within the scope of the claim 14 of the application.
Claim 15 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 15 of U.S. Patent No. 12238359. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 15 is generic to a species or sub-genus claimed in patent claim 15, i.e., the entire scope of the patent claim 15 falls within the scope of the claim 15 of the application.
Claim 18 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 18 of U.S. Patent No. 12238359. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 18 is generic to a species or sub-genus claimed in patent claim 18, i.e., the entire scope of the patent claim 18 falls within the scope of the claim 18 of the application.
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.
Claims 4, 16, and 19 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.
The term “relatively small” in claims 4, 16, and 19 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “relatively small” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
The term “relatively large” in claims 4, 16, and 19 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “relatively large” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 12, 15, and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Manouchehri et al. (US 2017/0061476).
Regarding claim 1, Manouchehri teaches an apparatus comprising:
at least one processing device comprising a processor coupled to a memory ([0080]-[0082], [0115], Fig. 15);
wherein said at least one processing device is configured:
to receive from each of a plurality of user devices one or more corresponding messages relating to a live event ([0102], “In the illustrative embodiment, a sports team organization, Team XYZ, uses social content and advertisement synchronization system 1600 to collect and curate items of social media content related to Team XYZ. Thus, in the manner described above, items of social media content including, for example, tweets, posts on personalized social media pages, photos, blog posts, etc., that mention Team XYZ or are related to Team XYZ are collected and stored in social media content database 1635.” Figs. 17-18);
to process the received messages to determine relevance of the respective received messages to a current state of the live event ([0102], “Team XYZ then curates the items by, for example, deleting undesired content items (including, for example, posts using profane language), approving selected content items, tagging selected content items, etc. For example, Team XYZ may add tags to selected items of social media content, such as a tag indicating ‘fans cheering at Team XYZ game,’ a tag indicating ‘fan wearing Team XYZ jersey,’ a tag indicating ‘vehicle with Team XYZ bumper sticker,’ a tag indicating ‘President Obama at Team XYZ game,’ etc.” Figs. 17-18);
to select a subset of the received messages based at least in part on their respective determined relevance ([0103], “Referring again to FIG. 17, when Team XYZ plays a game in stadium 1700, selected items of social content are retrieved and displayed on the various display devices located throughout stadium 1700. Thus, at step 1810, a plurality of items of social media content having content tags matching one or more predetermined criteria are selected.” Figs. 17-18); and
to control presentation of the selected subset of the received messages on at least one display at the live event ([0104], “At step 1820, first items selected from the plurality of items of social media content are displayed, during a live event occurring at a venue, on each of a plurality of large screen display devices disposed at selected locations of the venue. … In the illustrative embodiment, the photos in the feed are displayed on jumbotron displays 1722, on TVs 1735, and on user devices 1740, while game play is occurring. The items in the feed may be displayed on all the display devices in the stadium.” Figs. 17-19).
Regarding claim 2, Manouchehri further teaches wherein the at least one processing device comprises at least a portion of a text-based conversation processing platform implemented at least in part in one or more of
(i) a venue of the live event and
(ii) cloud infrastructure remote from the venue of the live event ([0093], “Content acquisition manager 1620 accesses sources of social media content and searches for items of social media content that satisfy one or more parameters. For example, content acquisition manager 1620 may access social media websites such as Twitter, Facebook, Youtube, etc., and obtain tweets, images, posts, videos, etc., that contain a specified hashtag, contain a specified word, contain a specified image, etc. In an illustrative example, content acquisition manager 1620 may search for Facebook posts that contain the words ‘XYZ Company.’” [0102], “Thus, in the manner described above, items of social media content including, for example, tweets, posts on personalized social media pages, photos, blog posts, etc., that mention Team XYZ or are related to Team XYZ are collected and stored in social media content database 1635.”).
Regarding claim 3, Manouchehri further teaches wherein the at least one display comprises a video wall implemented at a venue of the live event so as to be visible to performers at the live event and to fans remotely viewing the live event on respective user devices ([0104], “At step 1820, first items selected from the plurality of items of social media content are displayed, during a live event occurring at a venue, on each of a plurality of large screen display devices disposed at selected locations of the venue. … In the illustrative embodiment, the photos in the feed are displayed on jumbotron displays 1722, on TVs 1735, and on user devices 1740, while game play is occurring. The items in the feed may be displayed on all the display devices in the stadium.” Figs. 17-19).
Regarding claim 12, Manouchehri further teaches wherein processing the received messages to determine relevance of the respective received messages to a current state of the live event comprises for a given one of the messages:
determining if the message contains at least one word that is at least one of (i) associated with one or more designated topics of a dynamically updated topics list and (ii) within a dynamically updated terms list; and computing relevance of the message based at least in part on results of the determination relating to (i) and (ii) ([0095], “Curation system 1640 enables users to access stored items of social media content and to curate these items in the manner described above. For example, a user may examine each item of social media content in one or more feeds, and either delete the item, tag the item, or perform another action with respect to the item.” [0103], “Thus, at step 1810, a plurality of items of social media content having content tags matching one or more predetermined criteria are selected. For example, curation system 1640 or engagement application 1670 may allow Team XYZ to specify one or more key words or other parameters, such as ‘fans cheering at Team XYZ game’ and ‘fan wearing Team XYZ jersey.’ Social media content database 1635 is accessed (by curation system 1640 and/or engagement application 1670), and approved items of social media content having tags matching the specified tags are retrieved and used to create a feed.”).
Regarding claim 15, Manouchehri teaches a computer program product comprising a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium having computer program code embodied therein ([0080]-[0082], [0115], Fig. 15). The grounds of rejection under 35 USC § 102 presented with respect to claim 1 are similarly applied to the remaining limitations of claim 15.
Regarding claim 18, the grounds of rejection under 35 USC § 102 presented with respect to claim 1 are similarly applied to claim 18.
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.
Claim(s) 4, 16, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over a combination of Manouchehri and Bathory (US 2020/0404344).
Regarding claims 4, 16, and 19, Manouchehri further teaches wherein the processing, selecting, and controlling are implemented at least in part utilizing one or more algorithms ([0080]-[0082], [0115], Fig. 15) and wherein the one or more algorithms comprise at least a wall population algorithm configured to drive a video wall at the live event to support a live text-based conversation ([0093], “Content acquisition manager 1620 accesses sources of social media content and searches for items of social media content that satisfy one or more parameters. For example, content acquisition manager 1620 may access social media websites such as Twitter, Facebook, Youtube, etc., and obtain tweets, images, posts, videos, etc., that contain a specified hashtag, contain a specified word, contain a specified image, etc. In an illustrative example, content acquisition manager 1620 may search for Facebook posts that contain the words ‘XYZ Company.’” [0102], “Thus, in the manner described above, items of social media content including, for example, tweets, posts on personalized social media pages, photos, blog posts, etc., that mention Team XYZ or are related to Team XYZ are collected and stored in social media content database 1635.” [0104], “At step 1820, first items selected from the plurality of items of social media content are displayed, during a live event occurring at a venue, on each of a plurality of large screen display devices disposed at selected locations of the venue. … In the illustrative embodiment, the photos in the feed are displayed on jumbotron displays 1722, on TVs 1735, and on user devices 1740, while game play is occurring. The items in the feed may be displayed on all the display devices in the stadium.” Figs. 17-19).
However, does not expressly teach that the live text-based conversation is between a relatively small group of performers at the live event and a relatively large group of fans remotely viewing the live event on respective user devices.
Bathory teaches drive a video wall at a live event to support a live conversation between a relatively small group of performers at the live event and a relatively large group of fans remotely viewing the live event on respective user devices ([0006], “A production/performance system may be set up for a performer to give a live performance, which may be transmitted by audio and/or visual (e.g., audiovisual) means to a disparately and/or remotely located audience. The audience may be of any size, such as less than 1,000 people, more than 1,000 people, or in the range of 1 to 1 million (or more) people. Some or all of the audience members, in turn, may each be represented by a surrogate, which may be displayed back to the performer on an audience feedback display set up to be viewable by the performer (e.g., in front of or on the performer's stage). The performer may optionally interact with one or more of the audience members during the performance, such as in real time, as further described herein.” [0009], [0047], “IG. 12 illustrates a view 1201 of a performer giving a performance using an audience display screen 207 according to one or more illustrative aspects described herein.” [0053], [0069], “FIG. 14 similarly illustrates a performer's 200 view of audience display 207 from stage 201. The real life performer from a real stage can see the audience (surrogates or avatars) residing in virtual space on the audience feedback screen 207. The event production system may thereby create a scenario like a movie reversed, where the audience is in the virtual space and the performer is real, yet they can still interact with one another—the performer and audience may be able to see and hear each other to visual and audibly interact.” Figs. 12, 14).
In view of Bathory’s teaching, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Manouchehri such that the live text-based conversation is between a relatively small group of performers at the live event and a relatively large group of fans remotely viewing the live event on respective user devices. The modification would enhance interactivity between performers and audience members. The modification would serve to improve the audience experience.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over a combination of Manouchehri, Bathory, and Satalkar et al. (US 2014/0136546).
Regarding claim 5, the combination teaches the limitations specified above; however, the combination does not expressly teach wherein at least one of the one or more algorithms is configured to dynamically adjust one or more of
a rate at which messages are presented on the video wall,
a duration for which particular ones of the presented messages remain on the video wall subsequent to initial presentation on the video wall, and
a format in which particular ones of the messages are presented on the video wall.
Satalkar teaches dynamically adjusting one or more of a rate at which messages are presented ([0039], “At step 350, content authored by those experts that is responsive to the search query can be determined. In one embodiment, as indicated previously, a threshold relevance level for the determination of content that is to be deemed responsive can be dynamically adjusted such that, if the content identified at step 345 comprises a smaller selection of content and, as such, represents a smaller search index, then the threshold relevance level can be reduced, while, if the content identified at step 345 comprises a large selection of content, and, as such, represents a larger search index, then the threshold relevance level can be increased.” [0043], “The indication of the content can include an identification of the nature of the content, such as whether it was posted, messaged, or the like, or whether it is content that was simply commented upon, such as by being ‘liked’ or otherwise positively or negatively reacted to by the individual. The indication of the content can also include a portion of the content, or other metadata about the content, such as a title of the content.” Fig. 3).
In view of Satalkar’s teaching, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination wherein at least one of the one or more algorithms is configured to dynamically adjust a rate at which messages are presented on the video wall. The modification would facilitate management of messages for presentation on the display at the live event.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over a combination of Manouchehri and Satalkar.
Regarding claim 6, Manouchehri teaches the limitations specified above; however, Manouchehri does not expressly teach further teaches wherein relevance is computed for each of the received messages, and selecting a subset of the received messages based at least in part on their respective determined relevance comprises selecting the subset of messages based at least in part on comparison of the computed relevance to a relevance threshold, and further wherein the relevance threshold is dynamically adjusted over time to throttle a rate at which messages are presented on the display.
Satalkar teaches:
wherein relevance is computed for each of received messages ([0017], [0037], “Once the content that is authored by user's friends, and which is responsive to the search query, is determined at step 325, processing can proceed to step 330 where the individual friends who authored such content can be identified by correlating the responsive content back to its authors. The individuals identified at step 330 can then be identified, at step 335, as being responsive to the user's query.” [0039], “At step 350, content authored by those experts that is responsive to the search query can be determined.” Fig. 3), and
selecting a subset of the received messages based at least in part on their respective determined relevance comprises selecting the subset of messages based at least in part on comparison of the computed relevance to a relevance threshold, and further wherein the relevance threshold is dynamically adjusted over time to throttle a rate at which messages are presented on the display ([0039], “At step 350, content authored by those experts that is responsive to the search query can be determined. In one embodiment, as indicated previously, a threshold relevance level for the determination of content that is to be deemed responsive can be dynamically adjusted such that, if the content identified at step 345 comprises a smaller selection of content and, as such, represents a smaller search index, then the threshold relevance level can be reduced, while, if the content identified at step 345 comprises a large selection of content, and, as such, represents a larger search index, then the threshold relevance level can be increased.” [0043], “The indication of the content can include an identification of the nature of the content, such as whether it was posted, messaged, or the like, or whether it is content that was simply commented upon, such as by being ‘liked’ or otherwise positively or negatively reacted to by the individual. The indication of the content can also include a portion of the content, or other metadata about the content, such as a title of the content.” Fig. 3).
In view of Satalkar’s teaching, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Manouchehri wherein relevance is computed for each of the received messages, and selecting a subset of the received messages based at least in part on their respective determined relevance comprises selecting the subset of messages based at least in part on comparison of the computed relevance to a relevance threshold, and further wherein the relevance threshold is dynamically adjusted over time to throttle a rate at which messages are presented on the display. The modification would facilitate management of messages for presentation on the display at the live event.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over a combination of Manouchehri and Di Sciullo et al. (US 2017/0083817).
Regarding claim 7, Manouchehri teaches the limitations specified above; however, the combination does not expressly teach wherein processing the received messages to determine relevance of the respective received messages to a current state of the live event comprises for a given one of the messages: performing a cleanup operation on the message to remove designated elements; tokenizing the message by separating it into a set of words; determining a most likely language of the message; determining a sentiment score for the message; and performing entity detection to determine a word type for each of at least a subset of the words of the message.
Di Sciullo teaches:
performing a cleanup operation on the message to remove designated elements ([0108], “the filter module 14 eliminates URLs and hash tags at the periphery of the social media message, normalizes symbols and abbreviations, for example q1|1q|1st quarter| is replaced by ‘first quarter’.”);
tokenizing the message by separating it into a set of words ([0133], “the POS Tagger 34 applies to the ingested filtered messages, tokenizes the string and assigns part of speech to the tokens on the basis of a set of lexical and contextual rules, accounting for the distribution of categories in natural language texts.” [0134]-[142]);
determining a most likely language of the message ([0102], “The language normalizer 13 verifies the language of an incoming message and normalizes its form.”);
determining a sentiment score for the message ([0033], “The sentiment calculator calculates the sentiment-per-keyword for each incoming message ingested by the event driven information extraction system.”); and
performing entity detection to determine a word type for each of at least a subset of the words of the message ([0084], “The system 10 further includes a filter 14 that eliminates noisy elements for the NLP processor 16, such as URLs and hash tags, and identifies the name entities that are part of the message; a part-of-speech (POS) tagger 34 assigning lexical categories to the tokenized messages; a morphological lemmatizer (MORPH) 36 deriving the canonical form of lexical items in order to enable the lexical lookups; a partial parser (PARSE) 38 recovering the structure of the main constituents.”).
In view of Di Sciullo’s teaching, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Manouchehri wherein processing the received messages to determine relevance of the respective received messages to a current state of the live event comprises for a given one of the messages: performing a cleanup operation on the message to remove designated elements; tokenizing the message by separating it into a set of words; determining a most likely language of the message; determining a sentiment score for the message; and performing entity detection to determine a word type for each of at least a subset of the words of the message. The modification would serve to improve identification of appropriate messages for presentation.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over a combination of Manouchehri, Di Sciullo, Tiwari (US 2019/0102374), and Liao et al. (US 2019/0079934).
Regarding claim 8, the combination teaches the limitations specified above; however, the combination does not expressly teach wherein performing a cleanup operation on the message to remove designated elements comprises removing emoji, punctuation and numbers, and converting all letters to lowercase.
Tiwari teaches performing a cleanup operation on a message to remove designated elements comprises removing emoji, punctuation and numbers ([0011], “In some implementations, the trending topics prediction system can eliminate, from the cumulative set, n-grams that contain a ‘stop word.’ … In some implementations, stop words can also include numbers, while in other implementations n-grams are only removed from the cumulative set if the n-gram has above a threshold amount of numbers. For example, where the n-grams are bi-grams, bi-grams can be left in the cumulative set when they contain zero or one number, but can be removed if both words are a number.” [0034], “Normalizing the extracted text can include replacing, with whitespace, or removing special characters such as punctuation and emojis.”).
In view of Tiwari’s teaching, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination wherein performing a cleanup operation on the message to remove designated elements comprises removing emoji, punctuation and numbers in order to facilitate tokenization and analysis (Tiwari: [0034]).
The combination teaches the limitations specified above; however, the combination does not expressly teach wherein performing a cleanup operation on the message to remove designated elements comprises converting all letters to lowercase.
Liao teaches performing a cleanup operation on a message to remove designated elements comprises converting all letters to lowercase ([0057], “The social-networking system 160 may normalize the search query by using techniques to bring the search query into a standardized format to improve searching efficiency. This may include removing extraneous (e.g., leading, trailing, or buffer) white space, removing common or stop words, converting all text into lowercase lettering, transforming the n-grams into a standardized spelling to remove regional differences, any other suitable normalization techniques, or any combination thereof.”).
In view of Liao’s teaching, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination wherein performing a cleanup operation on the message to remove designated elements comprises converting all letters to lowercase in order to improve processing efficiency.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over a combination of Manouchehri, Di Sciullo, Aschner et al. (US 10997240), and Liao.
Regarding claim 9, the combination further teaches wherein determining a sentiment score for the message comprises:
computing sentiment scores for respective words of the message, where the sentiment score for a given word comprises a value in a specified range between positive and negative limits (Di Sciullo: [0127], [0145], “A sentiment is an integer, which can be either positive or negative, computed on the basis of the application of the rules of the sentiment calculus to pairs of lexical items in their local syntactic context; for example, nouns (that is, nominal lexical items) representing assets and nouns/verbs/adjectives (that is, nominal, verbal or adjectival lexical items) representing sentiment in the form of polarity and strength.”), and
where positive or negative values indicate respectively positive or negative sentiment and an n value indicates neutral sentiment (Di Sciullo: [0127], [0145], “A sentiment is an integer, which can be either positive or negative, computed on the basis of the application of the rules of the sentiment calculus to pairs of lexical items in their local syntactic context; for example, nouns (that is, nominal lexical items) representing assets and nouns/verbs/adjectives (that is, nominal, verbal or adjectival lexical items) representing sentiment in the form of polarity and strength.”); and
computing the sentiment score for the message as a function of the sentiment scores computed for the words of the message (Di Sciullo: [0127], [0145], “A sentiment is an integer, which can be either positive or negative, computed on the basis of the application of the rules of the sentiment calculus to pairs of lexical items in their local syntactic context; for example, nouns (that is, nominal lexical items) representing assets and nouns/verbs/adjectives (that is, nominal, verbal or adjectival lexical items) representing sentiment in the form of polarity and strength. … In its most basic components the sentiment calculator 18 employs a mechanism for determining lexical polarity in social media messages and a mechanism for determining a strength value of lexical items and phrases used in social media messages.”).
While the combination teaches an n value indicates neutral sentiment, the combination does not expressly teach a zero value indicates neutral sentiment. The combination also does not expressly teach wherein relevance of the message is determined based at least in part on the sentiment score.
Aschner teaches a zero value indicating neutral sentiment (Col. 8, lines 26-43, “the sentiment score may be a textual value, such as ‘positive,’ ‘negative,’ or ‘neutral.’ In some embodiments, the sentiment score may be a numerical value, such as a number within a range of zero (0) to ten (10).”).
In view of Aschner’s teaching, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination such that a zero value indicates neutral sentiment in order to provide an alternative and/or supplemental manner in which to manage sentiment values.
The combination teaches the limitations specified above; however, the combination does not expressly teach wherein relevance of the message is determined based at least in part on the sentiment score.
Liao teaches wherein relevance of a message is determined based at least in part on a sentiment score ([0037], “The resources may be ranked and presented to the user according to their relative degrees of relevance to the search query. The search results may also be ranked and presented to the user according to their relative degree of relevance to the user.” [0073], “In particular embodiments, the snippet ranking-score may be based on one or more snippet-ranking factors 630. The snippet-ranking factors 630 may comprise one or more textual properties of the snippet. The textual properties may be characteristics of the snippet ascertainable by examining the text of the snippet itself. As an example and not by way of limitation, the textual properties may include one or more of: the number of tokens in the snippet, the number of characters in the snippet, the start or end position of the snippet within the content object text, the number of opinion words within snippet, the strength of the opinion words in the snippet, the number of nouns, adjective, or other parts of speech in the snippet, any other suitable textual properties, or any combination thereof. … The number and strength of the opinion words may be relevant because they may allow the user to determine the context of the content object. The strength of opinion words may be determined using sentiment analysis or any other suitable technique.”).
In view of Liao’s teaching, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination wherein relevance of the message is determined based at least in part on the sentiment score. The modification would serve to further improve identification of appropriate messages for presentation.
Claim(s) 10, 11, 17, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over a combination of Manouchehri and Pasoi et al. (US 9483529).
Regarding claims 10, 17, and 20, Manouchehri teaches the limitations specified above; however, the combination does not expressly teach further teaches wherein processing the received messages to determine relevance of the respective received messages to a current state of the live event comprises for a given one of the messages: computing a similarity score for the message based at least in part on similarity of the message to each of a plurality of other messages received for a specified lookback interval; and determining the relevance of the message based at least in part on the similarity score computed for the message, such that the more similar the message is to the plurality of other messages received for the specified lookback interval, the lower its relevance.
Pasoi teaches:
computing a similarity score for a message based at least in part on similarity of the message to each of a plurality of other messages received for a specified lookback interval (Col. 9, lines 20-30, “In one or more embodiments, the selection engine (122) includes functionality to identify an amount of related messages of the subset of the set of unviewed messages from a first account associated with the context account. For example, the selection engine (122) can identify one or more messages in a context account's message stream that are related by being partially or entirely duplicates of one another. For example, duplicate messages could be the same (e.g., additional instances of a message posted through rebroadcasting or sharing) or similar to one another (e.g., partially quoted messages).” The examiner notes that the lookback interval is construed as some time in the past.); and
determining a relevance of the message based at least in part on the similarity score computed for the message, such that the more similar the message is to the plurality of other messages received for the specified lookback interval, the lower its relevance (Col. 9, lines 42-50, “In one or more embodiments, the selection engine can rank the related messages, based on the amount of the related messages between the first account and the second account. For example, the selection engine (122) can rank the duplicative rebroadcasted messages of user accounts with a low score, such that those duplicative rebroadcasted messages will be less likely to be chosen for presentation to the context account, thereby avoiding presentation of duplicative messages.”).
In view of Pasoi’s teaching, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Manouchehri wherein processing the received messages to determine relevance of the respective received messages to a current state of the live event comprises for a given one of the messages: computing a similarity score for the message based at least in part on similarity of the message to each of a plurality of other messages received for a specified lookback interval; and determining the relevance of the message based at least in part on the similarity score computed for the message, such that the more similar the message is to the plurality of other messages received for the specified lookback interval, the lower its relevance. The modification would enable a combined system to avoid presentation of duplicative messages (see Pasoi: Col. 9, lines 42-50).
Regarding claim 11, the combination further teaches wherein computing the similarity score for the message based at least in part on similarity of the message to each of a plurality of other messages received for a specified lookback interval comprises computing the similarity score for the message based at least in part on similarity of the message to a plurality of other messages presented on the display for the specified lookback interval (Pasoi: Col. 9, lines 42-50; Col. 14, lines 5-27, “the user interface generation module (270) can generate additional user interface elements representing unviewed messages that include similar content to the currently displayed message or message cluster (e.g., multimedia types, duplicate messages, etc.).”).
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over a combination of Manouchehri and Garg et al. (US 2019/0121866).
Regarding claim 13, the combination teaches the limitations specified above; however, the combination does not expressly teach wherein processing the received messages to determine relevance of the respective received messages to a current state of the live event comprises for a given one of the messages applying the message to a machine learning algorithm implementing a classification model trained to generate relevance measures for messages applied thereto.
Garg teaches applying a message to a machine learning algorithm implementing a model trained to generate relevance measures for messages applied thereto ([0073], “As further shown in FIG. 2B, having determined a relevance score, the social networking system 102 performs the act 212 of comparing the relevance score to a relevance-score threshold. To make the comparison, in some embodiments, the social networking system 102 employs machine learning models to identify a relevance-score threshold that predicts whether users of the social networking system 102 will identify a direct digital message from the sender as an unsolicited message or, alternatively, not respond to the direct digital message. For example, in some embodiments, the social networking system 102 uses machine learning models in Facebook's FBLearner Flow to identify a relevance-score threshold.”).
In view of Garg’s teaching, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Manouchehri wherein processing the received messages to determine relevance of the respective received messages to a current state of the live event comprises for a given one of the messages applying the message to a machine learning algorithm implementing a classification model trained to generate relevance measures for messages applied thereto in order to facilitate relevance determination. The modification would additionally improve system efficiency.
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over a combination of Manouchehri and Cheung et al. (US 2016/0154556).
Regarding claim 14, the combination teaches the limitations specified above; however, the combination does not expressly teach wherein controlling presentation of the selected subset of the received messages on at least one display at the live event comprises designating one or more of the messages as respective pinned messages that remain presented on the display for a longer period of time than one or more other ones of the messages that are not so designated.
Cheung teaches designating one or more of messages as respective pinned messages that remain presented on display for a longer period of time than one or more other ones of messages that are not so designated ([0028], “Some embodiments are particularly directed to techniques for presenting a message received during a group communication session in a fixed location upon receiving a command directive to ‘pin’ a message. The pinned message remains in view to all participants in the group communication session even as additional messages are received and presented, and as the original message may scroll out of view.”).
In view of Cheung’s teaching, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Manouchehri wherein controlling presentation of the selected subset of the received messages on at least one display at the live event comprises designating one or more of the messages as respective pinned messages that remain presented on the display for a longer period of time than one or more other ones of the messages that are not so designated. The modification would allow certain messages to be more prominently displayed. The modification would serve to improve the user experience.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL R TELAN whose telephone number is (571)270-5940. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30AM-6:00PM.
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, Nasser Goodarzi can be reached at (571) 272-4195. 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.
/MICHAEL R TELAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2426