Detailed Action
Claims 1-20 are pending in this application. This is a response to the Amendments/Remarks filed on 7/27/26. This is a Final Rejection.
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.
Claims 1-2, 4-15, 17-20 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-9 of U.S. Patent No. 12,255,859(18/334,533) in view of US 2018/0254914 issued to Bastide et al.(Bastide) in view of US 2022/0329556 issued to Daga et al.(Daga).
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because ‘859 teaches the instant claims and differs in that the instant claims recites first channel or a chat and determining, using one or more trained machine-learning models, one or more characters that are associated with the message and that indicate whether the message includes inappropriate content; causing the one or more characters to be presented within the second channel or the virtual space in association with the message.
Bastide teaches first channel or chat([0003] Online chat in a less stringent definition may be primarily any direct text-based or video-based (webcams), one-on-one chat or one-to-many group chat, using tools such as instant messengers, Internet Relay Chat (IRC))…) and determining one or more characters that are associated with the message and that indicate whether the message includes inappropriate content; causing the one or more characters to be presented within the second channel or the virtual space in association with the message([0020] The illustrative embodiments improves action on offensive messages in online social networks by providing an offensive action management mechanism that monitors a posted message for user activity, detects a flagged message, identifies users who are not participating in the message activity to determine a review group, prompts the review group to analyze the offense and vote on a downstream action, and automatically takes a downstream action based on the result of the vote. The mechanism of the illustrative embodiments may require a quorum of responses. The mechanism may act on the message by locking, unlocking, deleting, or changing filters for the message for a group of people. The mechanism may act on the message by a consensus edit of the message by a trusted group. The mechanism may isolate different renditions of the offensive message to the social networks that found it offensive.).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the teachings of ‘859 to substitute the well known chat as taught by Bastide for ‘859’s virtual space and flagging offensive/inappropriate messages for review in order to provide the predictable result flagging offensive/inappropriate chat message for review.
One ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the teachings in order to review chat messages(Bastide, para.1,8).
‘859 in view of Bastide does not explicitly teach the use of one or more trained machine-learning models.
Daga explicitly teaches the use of a machine learning for identifying that content of a message may be inappropriate([0108] In an example, for a message input via a messaging window associated with a recipient(s), the machine learning network may identify that the content of the message may be inappropriate for family members (e.g., due to slang or vulgar language included in the message, an offensive joke included in the message, sensitive topics such as politics or religion included in the message, etc.)..)
Therefore it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify ‘859 in view of Bastide of user(s) flagging inappropriate message for review to apply the teaching of Daga of the use of machine learning that identifies messages that maybe inappropriate in order to provided the predictable result of using machine learning to identify and flag inappropriate message for review.
One ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the teachings in order to automate and manage social media posts for offensive messages.
Instant Claims
US 12,255,859
1. A method, implemented at least in part by one or more computing devices of a communication platform, comprising:
receiving, in association with a message posted within a first channel or a chat associated with the communication platform, a request to designate at least a portion of the message for review;
in response to receiving the request, causing the message posted in the first channel or the chat to be presented within a second channel or a virtual space of the communication platform, wherein the second channel or the virtual space was previously designated for reviewing messages and wherein one or more members of the second channel or the virtual space are associated with a set of permissions for reviewing the messages within the second channel or the virtual space, wherein the set of permissions authorize the one or more members to access the second channel or the virtual space and to review the messages, and wherein users of the communication platform that lack the set of permissions are not authorized to access the second channel or the virtual space and to review the messages;
2. The method as recited in claim 1, further comprising based at least in part on the request, disabling interaction with the message within the first channel or the chat for a limited period of time.
determining, using one or more trained machine-learning models, one or more characters that are associated with the message and that indicate whether the message includes inappropriate content; causing the one or more characters to be presented within the second channel or the virtual space in association with the message.
receiving, in association with the message and from a first client of a member of the second channel or the virtual space, input data indicating an action to be performed with respect to the message; and
performing, based at least in part on the input data, the action with respect to the message.
8. The method as recited in claim 1, wherein receiving the request comprises receiving, via a user interface of the communication platform in which the first channel or the chat is being presented, a selection of a selectable element indicating that the message is to be reported for review.
7. The method as recited in claim 1, wherein the message remains visible within the first channel or the chat after the request is received and until the input data is received or the action is performed.
6. The method as recited in claim 1, further comprising based at least in part on the request, removing the message from the first channel or the chat.
5. The method as recited in claim 1, further comprising based at least in part on the request, modifying the message within the first channel or the chat.
4. The method as recited in claim 1, further comprising based at least in part on the request, obfuscating the at least the portion of the message within the first channel or the chat.
9. The method as recited in claim 1, further comprising: in response to receiving the request, copying the message from the first channel or the chat to the second channel or the virtual space for review by the one or more members; and in response to the action being performed, presenting a notification in association with the message within the first channel or the chat.
11. The method as recited in claim 10, wherein the message and the context data exclude an identity or an identifier associated with a user that sent the request, such that the user remains anonymous with respect to the one or more members.
12. The method as recited in claim 1, further comprising: sending, to a first user that sent the request, a first notification associated with the action; and sending, to a second user that posted the message within the first channel or the chat, a second notification associated with at least one of the request or the action.
Claim 13, the method of claim 1, wherein: the action is identified based at least in part on one or more keywords detected within the message or the at least the portion of the message; and the second channel or the virtual space is a private channel that is not accessible to, nor viewable by, the users of the communication platform that are not included in the one or more members of the second virtual space or the virtual space.
10. The method as recited in claim 1, further comprising: determining context data associated with the request and the message; and causing the context data to be presented in association with the message within the second channel or the virtual space.
1. A method, implemented at least in part by one or more computing devices of a communication platform, comprising:
receiving, in association with a message posted within a first virtual space associated with the communication platform, a request to designate at least a portion of the message for review;
in response to receiving the request, causing the message posted in the first virtual space to be presented within a second virtual space of the communication platform with context data associated with the message, wherein the second virtual space was previously designated for reviewing messages and wherein one or more members of the second virtual space are associated with a set of permissions for reviewing the messages within the second virtual space, wherein the set of permissions identify a role or a user type associated with the one or more members that authorize the one or more members to access the second virtual space and to review the messages, and wherein users of the communication platform that lack the role or the user type are not authorized to access the second virtual space and to review the messages;
in response to receiving the request, disabling interaction with the message for a limited period of time;
receiving, in association with the message and from a first client of a member of the second virtual space, input data indicating an action to be performed with respect to the message; and
performing, based at least in part on the input data, the action with respect to the message.
2. The method as recited in claim 1, wherein receiving the request comprises receiving, via a user interface of the communication platform in which the first virtual space is being presented, a selection of a selectable element indicating that the message is to be reported for review.
3. The method as recited in claim 1, wherein the message remains visible within the first virtual space after the request is received and until the input data is received or the action is performed.
4. The method as recited in claim 1, wherein the action includes at least one of deleting the message or
the at least the portion of the message,
modifying the message or the at least the portion of the message, or
obfuscating the message or the at least the portion of the message.
5. The method as recited in claim 1, further comprising: in response to receiving the request, copying the message from the first virtual space to the second virtual space for review by the one or more members; and in response to the action being performed, presenting a notification in association with the message within the first virtual space.
6. The method as recited in claim 1, wherein the message and the context data exclude an identity or an identifier associated with a user that sent the request, such that the user remains anonymous with respect to the one or more members.
7. The method as recited in claim 1, further comprising: sending, to a first user that sent the request, a first notification associated with the action; and sending, to a second user that posted the message within the first virtual space, a second notification associated with at least one of the request or the action.
8. The method as recited in claim 1, wherein: the action is identified based at least in part on one or more keywords detected within the message or the at least the portion of the message; and the first virtual space is a channel and the second virtual space is a private channel that is not accessible to, nor viewable by, the users of the communication platform that are not included in the one or more members of the second virtual space.
9. The method as recited in claim 1, wherein the context data includes an identifier of the first virtual space in which the message was posted, a first identification of a first user that posted the message, a second identification of a second user that designated the at least the portion of the message for review, and one or more interactions with the message, wherein the one or more interactions include an extent to which one or more users have responded to, and interacted with, the message.
Claims 3,16 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-9 of U.S. Patent No. 12,255,859(18/334,533) in view of US 2018/0254914 issued to Bastide et al.(Bastide) in view of US 2022/0329556 issued to Daga et al.(Daga) in view of US 2016/0294753 issued to Centner.
As per claim 3,16, ‘859 in view of Bastide in view of Daga teaches the method/system of claims 1,14, however does not explicitly teach displaying an indicator in association with the message within the first channel or the chat, which is taught by Centner, Abstract, Fig.6, [0021] The disclosed embodiments are directed to a system for facilitating integrity based communications among users of a social network….The operations include receiving a first message on the social network from a first user that is available to second users of the social network. An indication is transmitted, the indication being displayed on a visual representation associated with the social network, the indication available to second users of the social network and specifying that the first message is flagged by a third user as non-compliant with a policy of the social network. A first message is transmitted for a review by a first voter selected from a plurality of users of the social network. A first voter is selected based on a predetermined model. The review determines if the first message will be removed from the social networking site. A result of the review is transmitted to the first user, wherein the result of the review determining if the first user is restricted from posting the first message for a predetermined period of time. The system also includes determining if the review by the at least one voter is ratified by a quorum of users above a threshold value.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the teachings of ‘859 in view of Bastide in view of Daga to display indication associated with messages as taught by Centner in order to provide the predictable result of displaying indication of flagged messages.
One ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the teachings in order get a notification/indication of flagged messages.
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 1-20 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.
As per claims 1,14, 18, recites the term “inappropriate content” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “inappropriate content” 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 specification para.20,37,46,103,169 recites inappropriate however does not define what is considered inappropriate content, ie content containing profanity/obscenity is inappropriate for one person may not be inappropriate for another person.
All dependent claims are rejected for the same reasons set forth above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 1-3, 5-10, 12-16, 18-20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2016/0294753 issued to Centner in view of US 2015/0371341 issued to Iyer et al.(Iyer) in view of US 2018/0254914 issued to Bastide et al.(Bastide) in view of US 2022/0329556 issued to Daga et al.(Daga).
As per claims 1,14, 18, Centner teaches a method, implemented at least in part by one or more computing devices of a communication platform/A system comprising: memory; one or more processors; and one or more computer-executable instructions that are stored in the memory and that are executable by the one more processors to perform operations/One or more non-transitory computer-readable media storing one or more computer-executable instructions that, when executed by one or more processors, cause the one more processors to perform operations(Fig.1) comprising:
receiving, in association with a message posted within a social website associated with the communication platform, a request to designate at least a portion of the message for review(Abstract, Fig.6A, [0021] The disclosed embodiments are directed to a system for facilitating integrity based communications among users of a social network… The operations include receiving a first message on the social network from a first user that is available to second users of the social network. An indication is transmitted, the indication being displayed on a visual representation associated with the social network, the indication available to second users of the social network and specifying that the first message is flagged by a third user as non-compliant with a policy of the social network. A first message is transmitted for a review by a first voter selected from a plurality of users of the social network. A first voter is selected based on a predetermined model. The review determines if the first message will be removed from the social networking site. A result of the review is transmitted to the first user, wherein the result of the review determining if the first user is restricted from posting the first message for a predetermined period of time. The system also includes determining if the review by the at least one voter is ratified by a quorum of users above a threshold value. [0061] A computerized social network is provided in which a user's activity can be flagged, such as by a peer or an administrator. A flagged activity can be distributed for review to a jury of arbitrators who are peers in the social network. A user's activity on the social network can be restricted due to an inappropriate behavior. The restriction can include suspending or expelling the user from the social network. The restriction can be implemented by blocking access to the social network via the user's hardware device, such as a smart phone, router, or computer. An identifier that identifies the hardware device can be associated with the user's account and used to block the device from accessing the user network, making it difficult for a user to circumvent the restriction by changing accounts. [0144]; obvious to one ordinary skill in the art that there are communication channels in order for users to communicate with each other on the social network);
in response to receiving the request, causing the message posted in the social website to be presented within a second channel or a virtual space of the communication platform([0146] Additionally, the user may enter a personal description regarding the reason the user is flagging the content. Once an indicator is received that the content was successfully flagged in step 504, the post is next sent to a guard feed in step 505 in which all users will continue to see the post. However, the content will include a flag icon or other indicator associated with the post so other users have an indication that the content is under review as indicated by the system's wheel menu 520 of kindness, particularly the guard selection 521 from the wheel of kindness 520 as shown in FIG. 6b. A number within a circle indicator 555 may appear on the user's wheel of kindness on the guard selection 521 as shown in FIG. 6(b), for example. If no indication is received that the content was successfully flagged, the method proceeds back to step 503. Once the guard voting unit has voted on the particular content in dispute in step 506, the results of voting are transmitted to the computing device of the original user that published the post under review in step 507. The flagging method of the disclosed embodiment ends at step 508.),
wherein the second channel or the virtual space was previously designated for reviewing messages and wherein one or more members of the second channel or the virtual space are associated with a set of permissions for reviewing the messages within the second channel or the virtual space(Fig.7, [0061],[0146][0148] FIG. 6e shows an example where a user has reported a post of another user to be an offensive image 524 as indicated by selection of the item 524 as indicated by arrow 522. One the user has flagged a post using the Guard selection 521, the network of users may congregate and vote individually on the flagged post. Such voting may effected be in real-time, near real-time or even on a delayed time bases. The flagged item is reviewed and the user is sanctioned appropriately within a predetermined period of time that may be set by the user flagging the post or may be pre-set by the service provider for voting on such posts….[0152] ….. If not, the method returns to step 705 until the flagged posts are transmitted to the flag feed. The method next determines if the flagged posts were received in the feed within a maximum allowable time t at step 706 which in certain embodiments, t may be a predetermined value and/or a configurable value as determined by the system. If the time period is met, the method will next determine if a minimum number (eg. quorum number necessary to proceed) of flagged posts were received in step 707.…[0161][0186]-[0188]).
determining one or more characters that are associated with the message and that indicate whether the message includes inappropriate content(Fig.6a, [0008],[0010],[0059], [0024] ….. The operations further include flagging a message for inappropriate social network behavior. The operations further includes submitting the flagged message for review by at least one arbitrator user selected from the plurality of users for a determination of inappropriateness of the message. The operations further include applying restrictions to participation by the first user in the social network in response to a determination associated with the review by the at least one arbitrator that the message is inappropriate, [0144] ... The users can flag posts which they believe in their subjective opinion is inappropriate but, which furthermore violates the predetermined policies and terms of service of the social networking site 105. A post may be textual, include pictures, images, video or other forms of content. Once an item is flagged, it is distributed via the networking environment to the entire platform where users are provided with the ability to vote whether the flagged post is in compliance with the policies/terms of service….it provides users with the opportunity to report any content they deemed to be inappropriate to the social media site in their opinion. In an embodiment, the user can provide a newsfeed as shown in FIG. 6a providing the explicit reason for flagging the particular content. For example, the content may be deemed to be offensive, use of profanity, reflective of racism, bullying, harassment or another other reason that the reporter can enter in item (519). In alternate embodiments, alternate reasons may be indicated such as offensive, not nice, spam/annoying, random, bad images, and/or bad words as shown in FIG. 6c in the outer wheel selections (520));
causing the one or more characters to be presented within the second channel or the virtual space in association with the message([0152] FIG. 7…. If not, the method returns to step 705 until the flagged posts are transmitted to the flag feed… [0157] … This type of reward system will be an incentive for users to continue voting on flagged content that appears on the flag feed.[0161]);
Centner does not explicitly teach a first channel or a chat;
the use of one or more trained machine learning models;
wherein the set of permissions authorize the one or more members to access the second channel or the virtual space and to review the messages, and wherein users of the communication platform that lack the set of permissions are not authorized to access the second channel or the virtual space and to review the messages;
receiving, in association with the message and from a first client of a member of the second channel or the virtual space, input data indicating an action to be performed with respect to the message; and
performing, based at least in part on the input data, the action with respect to the message.
Iyer explicitly teach wherein the set of permissions authorize the one or more members to access the second channel or the virtual space and to review the messages([0022] An “administrator” refers to a person who has rights to create, assign, unassign, modify, delete, and/or otherwise manage social feeds using an admin tool. In some instances, a moderator who has such rights may be considered an administrator. [0024] Embodiments of the present invention allow, among other things, an administrator to efficiently manage moderation of social data by defining social feeds and selectively assigning each social feed to any number of moderators. An admin tool allows an administrator to create a social feed by defining one or more capture rules for capturing social mentions from any number of identified social networking services. The administrator may assign the social feed to individual moderators and/or moderator groups. This allows the administrator to delegate social content to specific moderators who can handle the social content more efficiently. When moderators log into their moderation tool, they can automatically see any assigned social feeds, view the social mentions captured by assigned social feeds, and perform various moderation actions), and wherein users of the communication platform that lack the set of permissions are not authorized to access the second channel or the virtual space and to review the messages([0041] The moderator assignment module 106 may also be used by an administrator to unassign the social feed from assigned moderators. FIG. 3 illustrates a flow diagram showing a method 300 for unassigning a social feed from one or more moderators that may be employed by the moderator assignment module 106. As shown at block 302, a social feed is identified. For instance, a user interface may be provided that allows the administrator to select from a list of existing social feeds. The social feed is unassigned from one or more moderators to which the social feed was previously assigned, as shown at block 304. For instance, a user interface may be provided that lists individual moderators and/or moderator groups to which the social feed has been assigned. The administrator may select moderator(s) and/or moderator group(s) from that list to unassign the social feed from the selected moderator(s)/moderator group(s). The social feed is removed from the moderation tool of the unassigned moderators, as shown at block 306. As such, the social feed and social mentions from the social feed will no longer appear in the moderation tool of the unassigned moderators.; The social feed is removed from the moderation tool of the unassigned moderator and the social feed and social mentions from the social feed will no longer appear in the moderation tool of the unassigned moderators, the unassigned moderators is interpreted as the users that lack permissions who are not authorized to access and review the messages).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Centner of voting on whether flagged messages violates policy/term of service to apply the known elements of Iyer of a moderator admin that can assign(give authorization/designate) and unassign(take away authorization) of social feeds to moderator(s)and/or moderator(s) groups for reviewing social media messages in order to provide the predictable result of an admin that authorize/designate certain users to vote based on whether flagged messages violates policy/term of service.
One ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the teachings in order to monitor and manage social media posts for offensive messages(Centner, para.3) and to assign the most qualified personnel to review potential offensive messages.
Centner in view of Iyer does not explicitly teach using one or more trained machine-learning models, a first channel or a chat; receiving, in association with the message and from a first client of a member of the second channel or the virtual space, input data indicating an action to be performed with respect to the message; performing, based at least in part on the input data, the action with respect to the message. Centner and Bastide does teach posting of messages in social network/feed which fairly suggest that there is a first channel or chat.
Bastide explicitly teaches a first channel or a chat([0003] Online chat in a less stringent definition may be primarily any direct text-based or video-based (webcams), one-on-one chat or one-to-many group chat, using tools such as instant messengers, Internet Relay Chat (IRC)), talkers and possibly multi-user dungeons (MUDs). The expression online chat comes from the word chat which refers to informal conversation. Online chat includes web-based applications that allow communication—often directly addressed, but anonymous between users in a multi-user environment. Web conferencing is a more specific online service that is often sold as a service and hosted on a web server controlled by the vendor.); receiving, in association with the message and from a first client of a member of the second channel or the virtual space, input data indicating an action to be performed with respect to the message(Fig.2, [0034] In response to detecting offensive message 123, review group selection component 112 communicates with communication platform 120 to identify a group of non-participating users 124, who are not engaging in conversation 122, to serve as a review group for the offensive message 121 In one embodiment, review group selection component 112 may request communication platform 120 to randomly identify a predetermined number of all users not in group 121 to serve as an impartial review group. In another embodiment, review group selection component 112 may request a group of users not in group 121 who volunteer to be included in review groups. In yet another embodiment, review group selection component 112 may request users 124 from friends or friends-of-friends of users in group 121. Alternatively, review group selection component 112 may request users 124 from friends or friends-of-friends of the offending user and the flagging user(s). In another embodiment, review group selection component 112 may request users 124 from one or more online communities to Which users 121 belong. Thus, review group selection component 112 may use one or more sets of rules to balance impartiality of users with knowledge of the context of the message. In one example embodiment, review group selection component 112 may select the one or more sets of rules from a user configurable policy (not shown). [0035] Poll generation/analysis component 113 generates poll 125 and presents the poll to the group of non-participating users 124 through communication platform 120. Alternatively, poll generation/analysis component 113 may present the poll to the users 124 outside communication platform 120. In the depicted example, the poll 125 identifies the user, provides a link to the offending message for review, and provides a plurality of options for downstream action. The link to the offending message may show the message in context. In another embodiment, the identity of the offending user may be hidden to protect against bias. [0036] In the depicted example, the options for downstream action include the following: [0037] 1. Suspend: suspend the user from accessing communication platform 120 for a predetermined period of time; [0038] 2. Reinstate: restore access to the user; [0039] 3. Filter message: remove the offending message 123 from conversation 122; and, [0040] 4. Edit message: perform a consensus edit of the message by a trusted group, possibly the review group of users 124; reviewers provided with options that are selected for a particular flagged message such as suspend, re-instate, filter, edit); and performing, based at least in part on the input data, the action with respect to the message(Fig.2, para.34-40; edit message through a consensus edit by the reviewers).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Centner in view of Iyer of an admin that authorize/designate certain users to vote based on whether flagged messages violates policy/term of service to include the teaching of Bastide of reviewers voting on a particular action as it relates to the flagged message in order to provide the predictable result of voting on particular actions as it relates to flagged messages that violates policy/term of service.
One ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the teachings in order to monitor and manage social media posts for offensive messages(Centner, para.3, Bastide, para.1-5).
Centner in view of Iyer in view of Bastide does not explicitly teach the use of one or more trained machine-learning models to determine whether message content is inappropriate. However, Centner Fig.6a, [0008],[0010],[0059], [0024],[0144] and Bastide, Fig.1, [0019],[0020],[0026], does teach user(s) can determine whether a message post/chat contains inappropriate content.
Daga explicitly teaches the use of a machine learning for identifying that content of a message may be inappropriate([0108] In an example, for a message input via a messaging window associated with a recipient(s), the machine learning network may identify that the content of the message may be inappropriate for family members (e.g., due to slang or vulgar language included in the message, an offensive joke included in the message, sensitive topics such as politics or religion included in the message, etc.). In some examples, the machine learning network may output a relatively low probability score for any recipient(s) classified as a family member or a professional contact (e.g., an office colleague). In some other examples, the machine learning network may output a relatively high probability score for any recipient(s) classified as a close friend or personal contact. In some cases, the machine learning network may determine the probability scores based on an analysis of communication histories (e.g., communications also including slang, vulgar language, sensitive topics, etc.) between the sender of the message and contacts associated with the sender.)
Therefore it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Centner in view of Iyer in view of Bastide of user(s) flagging inappropriate message for review to apply the teaching of Daga of the use of machine learning that identifies messages that maybe inappropriate in order to provide the predictable result of using machine learning to identify and flag inappropriate message(s) for review.
One ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the teachings in order to automate and manage social media posts for offensive messages.
As per claims 2,15, Centner in view of Iyer in view of Bastide in view of Daga teaches the method/system as recited in claim 1,14, further comprising based at least in part on the request, disabling interaction with the message within the first channel or the chat for a limited period of time(Bastide, [0037] 1. Suspend: suspend the user from accessing communication platform 120 for a predetermined period of time). Motivation to combine set forth in claim 1,14.
As per claims 3,16, Centner in view of Iyer in view of Bastide in view of Daga teaches the method/system as recited in claim 1,14, further comprising based at least in part on the request, displaying an indicator in association with the message within the first channel or the chat(Centner, [0021] The disclosed embodiments are directed to a system for facilitating integrity based communications among users of a social network….The operations include receiving a first message on the social network from a first user that is available to second users of the social network. An indication is transmitted, the indication being displayed on a visual representation associated with the social network, the indication available to second users of the social network and specifying that the first message is flagged by a third user as non-compliant with a policy of the social network. A first message is transmitted for a review by a first voter selected from a plurality of users of the social network. A first voter is selected based on a predetermined model. The review determines if the first message will be removed from the social networking site. A result of the review is transmitted to the first user, wherein the result of the review determining if the first user is restricted from posting the first message for a predetermined period of time. The system also includes determining if the review by the at least one voter is ratified by a quorum of users above a threshold value; Bastide, [0003] Online chat in a less stringent definition may be primarily any direct text-based or video-based (webcams), one-on-one chat or one-to-many group chat, using tools such as instant messengers, Internet Relay Chat (IRC)), talkers and possibly multi-user dungeons (MUDs). The expression online chat comes from the word chat which refers to informal conversation. Online chat includes web-based applications that allow communication—often directly addressed, but anonymous between users in a multi-user environment. Web conferencing is a more specific online service that is often sold as a service and hosted on a web server controlled by the vendor. ). Motivation to combine set forth in claim 1,14,
As per claims 5,19, Centner in view of Iyer in view of Bastide in view of Daga teaches the method/the one or more non-transitory computer readable media as recited in claim 1,18, further comprising based at least in part on the request, modifying the message within the first channel or the chat(Basitde, Fig.2, 0040] 4. Edit message: perform a consensus edit of the message by a trusted group, possibly the review group of users 124).
As per claims 6,20, Centner in view of Iyer in view of Bastide in view of Daga teaches the method/the one or more non-transitory computer readable media as recited in claim 1,18, further comprising based at least in part on the request, removing the message from the first channel or the chat(Centner, Fig.7, step 713, [0151] The system implements a voting process to determine whether the majority of user have voted that the content as inappropriate and therefore, seek to guard the network from inappropriate posts. The flag voting process may be implemented to determine the number of users that are required to determine whether the content should be removed from the networking site 105.).
As per claim 7, Centner in view of Iyer in view of Bastide in view of Daga teaches the method as recited in claim 1, wherein the message remains visible within the first channel or the chat after the request is received and until the input data is received or the action is performed(Centner,para.146; post has a flag icon and will be continue to be posted on social network while under review).
As per claim 8, Centner in view of Iyer in view of Bastide in view of Daga teaches the method as recited in claim 1, wherein receiving the request comprises receiving, via a user interface of the communication platform in which the first channel or the chat is being presented, a selection of a selectable element indicating that the message is to be reported for review(Centner, Fig.6a, para.21,146).
As per claim 9, Centner in view of Iyer in view of Bastide in view of Daga teaches the method as recited in claim 1, further comprising: in response to receiving the request, copying the message from the first channel or the chat to the second channel or the virtual space for review by the one or more members; and in response to the action being performed, presenting a notification in association with the message within the first channel or the chat(Centner,para.146; guard feed receives flagged posts and the flagged post has a flag icon and will be continue to be posted on social network; the flagged post is considered to be “copied” since it’s both in the guard feed and continue to be posted on the social network).
As per claim 10, Centner in view of Iyer in view of Bastide in view of Daga teaches the method as recited in claim 1, further comprising: determining context data associated with the request and the message(Centner, Fig.6c); and causing the context data to be presented in association with the message within the second channel or the virtual space([0144] In yet another embodiment of the integrity based social networking site 105, is a method of guarding the social platform implemented by the site 105. The Guard flagging system empowers users of the site 105, with the ability to determine content as inappropriate. The users can flag posts which they believe in their subjective opinion is inappropriate but, which furthermore violates the predetermined policies and terms of service of the social networking site 105. A post may be textual, include pictures, images, video or other forms of content. Once an item is flagged, it is distributed via the networking environment to the entire platform where users are provided with the ability to vote whether the flagged post is in compliance with the policies/terms of service. This permits the users to cooperatively enforce an integrity based social media experience as possible. A contemplated embodiment of the flagging method is shown in FIG. 5. As users navigate through the social network site 105 and related posts that other members of the site have reviewed, it provides users with the opportunity to report any content they deemed to be inappropriate to the social media site in their opinion. In an embodiment, the user can provide a newsfeed as shown in FIG. 6a providing the explicit reason for flagging the particular content. For example, the content may be deemed to be offensive, use of profanity, reflective of racism, bullying, harassment or another other reason that the reporter can enter in item (519). In alternate embodiments, alternate reasons may be indicated such as offensive, not nice, spam/annoying, random, bad images, and/or bad words as shown in FIG. 6c in the outer wheel selections (520).).
As per claim 12, Centner in view of Iyer in view of Bastide in view of Daga teaches the method as recited in claim 1, further comprising: sending, to a first user that sent the request, a first notification associated with the action(Centner, [0162] It is further contemplated, that when a user flags another post, they will be updated with the result of the voting process. The user that flagged the post will receive a notification that states if the post the user flagged was voted on favourably or otherwise by the Guard voting process. If the content the user flagged was deemed to be a violation of the terms of service, it will be removed from the networking site in accordance with the terms of service. If the flagged post is not deemed to be a violation of the terms of service, the post remains on the network and the ability to flag such content is available through the flagging processes of the social networking site.); and sending, to a second user that posted the message within the first channel or the chat, a second notification associated with at least one of the request or the action(Centner; [0155] The method otherwise, proceeds to step 710 at which point, to determine whether the vote on the flagged post is indeed a violation of the terms of service. The method will determine whether the decision on the voting process is received in step 711. If not, the method will return to step 709 to determine if the threshold number of votes were received and proceed therefrom. If the decision on the voting process is received, it is next determined whether the decision determined a violation of terms of service at step 712. If not, the system proceeds to step 716 to reinstate the flagged post and ends at step 718. Otherwise, the method proceeds to remove the flagged post from the network at step 713. The process next transmits a notification to the publisher of the flagged post at step 714. Appropriate punishment in accordance with the terms and policies of the social networking site, is next determined in step 715, after which the example method ends at step 718.).
As per claim 13, Centner in view of Iyer in view of Bastide in view of Daga teaches the method as recited in claim 1, wherein: the action is identified based at least in part on one or more keywords detected within the message or the at least the portion of the message(Centner, 0144] In yet another embodiment of the integrity based social networking site 105, is a method of guarding the social platform implemented by the site 105. The Guard flagging system empowers users of the site 105, with the ability to determine content as inappropriate. The users can flag posts which they believe in their subjective opinion is inappropriate but, which furthermore violates the predetermined policies and terms of service of the social networking site 105. A post may be textual, include pictures, images, video or other forms of content. Once an item is flagged, it is distributed via the networking environment to the entire platform where users are provided with the ability to vote whether the flagged post is in compliance with the policies/terms of service. This permits the users to cooperatively enforce an integrity based social media experience as possible. A contemplated embodiment of the flagging method is shown in FIG. 5. As users navigate through the social network site 105 and related posts that other members of the site have reviewed, it provides users with the opportunity to report any content they deemed to be inappropriate to the social media site in their opinion. In an embodiment, the user can provide a newsfeed as shown in FIG. 6a providing the explicit reason for flagging the particular content. For example, the content may be deemed to be offensive, use of profanity, reflective of racism, bullying, harassment or another other reason that the reporter can enter in item (519). In alternate embodiments, alternate reasons may be indicated such as offensive, not nice, spam/annoying, random, bad images, and/or bad words as shown in FIG. 6c in the outer wheel selections (520).); and the second channel or the virtual space is a private channel that is not accessible to, nor viewable by, the users of the communication platform that are not included in the one or more members of the second virtual space or the virtual space(Bastide Fig.1, element 125, [0034] In response to detecting offensive message 123, review group selection component 112 communicates with communication platform 120 to identify a group of non-participating users 124, who are not engaging in conversation 122, to serve as a review group for the offensive message 121 In one embodiment, review group selection component 112 may request communication platform 120 to randomly identify a predetermined number of all users not in group 121 to serve as an impartial review group. In another embodiment, review group selection component 112 may request a group of users not in group 121 who volunteer to be included in review groups. In yet another embodiment, review group selection component 112 may request users 124 from friends or friends-of-friends of users in group 121. Alternatively, review group selection component 112 may request users 124 from friends or friends-of-friends of the offending user and the flagging user(s). In another embodiment, review group selection component 112 may request users 124 from one or more online communities to Which users 121 belong. Thus, review group selection component 112 may use one or more sets of rules to balance impartiality of users with knowledge of the context of the message. In one example embodiment, review group selection component 112 may select the one or more sets of rules from a user configurable policy (not shown); review group is not part of group 121 and/or part of the conversation, group 121 does not have access to the review group). Motivation to combine set forth in claim 1.
Claims 4,17, rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2016/0294753 issued to Centner in view of US 2015/0371341 issued to Iyer et al.(Iyer) in view of US 2018/0254914 issued to Bastide et al.(Bastide) in view of US 2022/0329556 issued to Daga et al.(Daga) in view of US 2015/0309987 issued to Epstein et al.(Epstein).
As per claims 4,17, Centner in view of Iyer in view of Bastide in view of Daga teaches the method/system as recited in claim 1,14, however does not explicitly teach further comprising based at least in part on the request, obfuscating the at least the portion of the message within the first channel or the chat, which is taught by Epstein, [0002] …Much of this accessible content, whether authored by someone who is familiar or unknown to a particular user, may include offensive content such as profane words. Software can be used to redact (or obfuscate) potentially offensive words. Some software performs redaction before the offensive content is served to end users, while some software redacts terms from unfiltered content that is received at an end user's device. For example, an offensive term in a text message may be redacted before being delivered to the recipient, or may be redacted from a received message at the recipient's device before the message is presented to a user. Offensive terms may also be redacted from the output of a speech recognizer. Some redaction systems are configured to delete all instances of an offensive term if the offensive term is found in a pre-defined list of offensive terms.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Centner in view of Iyer in view of Bastide in view of Daga of voting on particular actions as it relates to flagged messages that violates policy/term of service to apply the well known technique of obfuscation of offensive words as taught by Epstein in order to provide the predictable result of users voting on particular actions that violates policy/term of service for a message and obfuscating offensive words in the message.
One ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the teachings in order to monitor and manage social media posts for offensive messages(Centner, para.3, Bastide, para.1-5) and to not display offensive words in a message.
Claims 11 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2016/0294753 issued to Centner in view of US 2015/0371341 issued to Iyer et al.(Iyer) in view of US 2018/0254914 issued to Bastide et al.(Bastide) in view of US 2022/0329556 issued to Daga et al.(Daga) in view of US 2020/0005242 issued to Nagaraj et al.(Nagaraj).
As per claim 11, Centner in view of Iyer in view of Bastide in view of Daga teaches the method as recited in claim 10, however does not explicitly teach wherein the message and the context data exclude an identity or an identifier associated with a user that sent the request, such that the user remains anonymous with respect to the one or more members, which is taught by Nagaraj, [0046] The storing module 206 stores message data consisting of the received messages along with associated metadata in the data storage 210. In some embodiments, the storing module 206 anonymizes the message data to protect the privacy of the users. For example, the storing module 206 removes names and other personal information from the message data. The storing module 206 may also store the message data for a limited period of time, after which the message data is deleted. In some embodiments, a user is allowed to opt in or opt out of having their message data stored by the storing module 206. Accordingly, users that do not want to have their message data stored can opt out, resulting in the storing module 206 not storing their message data
Therefore it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Centner in view of Iyer in view of Bastide in view of Daga of voting on particular actions as it relates to flagged messages that violates policy/term of service to apply Najaraj’s teaching of anonymizing message data in order to provide the predictable result of users voting on particular actions related to an anonymized message that violates policy/term of service.
One ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the teachings in order to monitor and manage social media posts for offensive messages(Centner, para.3, Bastide, para.1-5) and to keep the flagged message anonymous to prevent bias in voting.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejections have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground of rejection is made.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892.
US 2012/0272143 issued to Gillick, teaches s system and method for audience participation in vote-based copyediting. Online content readers may indicate certain content errors to the online publisher, such as highlighting an identified typographical error. These errors may be sent to an administrator who can take corrective action.
US 2021/0203771 issued to Innocenti et al., teaches systems and methods are described herein for facilitating the review of messages (e.g., text messages, instant messages, chat messages, and so on) via a keyboard application of a mobile device. The message review system can facilitate a review of a message before it is sent to a recipient (e.g., a recipient of a text message or another user within a chat conversation).
US 8,838,719 issued to Faulk, teaches filtering objectionable content from messages prior to transmission of the messages to recipients. A message is obtained for which a sender seeks to transmit, via a network, to one or more recipients. An examination is determined that is to be performed upon the message, where the examination is selected from among a set of available examinations. An action is initiated for the message, where the action is determined based upon a result of the examination. The action includes at least one of: transmitting the message to the recipients, requesting the sender to review the message, modifying the message, and deleting the message.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BACKHEAN TIV whose telephone number is (571)272-5654. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon.-Thurs. 5:30-3:30.
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, TONIA DOLLINGER can be reached on (571) 272-4170. 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.
/BACKHEAN TIV/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2459
Prosecution Insights