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 . Claims 1-13 are presented for examination.
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.
Foreign Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), which papers have been placed of record in the file. Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. JP2024-032721, filed on 03/05/2024.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 03/03/2025. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Examiner's Note
Examiner has cited particular paragraphs in the references as applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant in preparing responses, to fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
Objections
Specification in para [003], recite that the application is continuation of Chinese Application CN 111294607A but the continuation comes from JP 2024-032721. Applicant needs to clarify which continuation it is referring. Is it depending from Japanese Application or Chinese Application.
Regarding claim 9, the limitation “one or plurality of processors” is grammatically incorrect … it should recites as “one or more processors”. Furthermore, the limitation “execute a machine-readable instruction” is in singular form likely should be “machine-readable instructions.” Appropriate corrections are required”.
Referring to claim 11 is objected to because of the following informalities: Referring to claim 11, recites a limitation “the notifying process…” which depends on claim 4 but claim 4 does not mention anything about “notifying step”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1–8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because they are directed to a judicial exception to patent eligibility, specifically an abstract idea, without reciting significantly more.
Referring to claim 1, Analysis of the Claims: Step 1: Statutory Category Claims 1–8 recite a process, which is one of the four statutory categories of patent-eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Step 2A, Prong 1: Judicial Exception Identification The claims are directed to an abstract idea, specifically a rule for managing human communication/content moderation where human can perform the basic process described in claim 1.
Claim 1 recites steps that can be categorized as mental processes or abstract actions: “obtaining a message from a first user”; “enabling the first user to amend a portion of the message to generate an amended message”; and displaying the amended message to second user”, ”wherein the message is not displayed to the second user before the portion of the message is amended by the first user”.
Step 2A, Prong 2: Integration into a Practical Application The claims do not recite additional elements or limitations that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. For example: • The claims do not improve the functioning of a computer or other technology. • The claims are not tied to any specific machine in a way that meaningfully limits the process. • The steps recited could be performed by conventional tools or manually, without requiring a technical or inventive solution. The arrangement of process is described in generic terms, lacking specific structural or functional improvements to a device or process.
Step 2B: Significantly More The claims do not include additional limitations that amount to “significantly more” than the abstract idea itself: • The recited elements, such as “obtaining” “enabling” and “displaying” are routine or conventional steps used to implement the idea. • There are no elements that transform the abstract idea into a specific, patent-eligible application (e.g., a novel or non-obvious arrangement or technical improvement). • The claims fail to provide any inventive concept that adds meaningful limitations to the abstract idea.
Therefore, based on the above analysis claims 1–8 are directed to a judicial exception (abstract idea) and do not recite additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application or add significantly more. Therefore, Dependent claims 2-8 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
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, 9, 10 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Regarding claims 1, 9 and 10, the limitations “a portion of the message”, enabling the first user to amend”, “before the portion…amended” are vague and indefinite. The claim never explains how the portion is identified in claim 1. It could be any portion selected by the user or system. Also its unclear what action by the server satisfies the “enabling” Is it presenting an edit box, unlocking a field, sending a prompt, or merely allowing editing? Furthermore, before the portion of the message ….is amended” is unclear because an ordinary artisan is unclear whether the entire original message is withheld or only a portion of message is withheld? “Appropriate corrections are required.
Regarding claim 7, the limitation “past interaction data” It is unclear what interaction data means as it is relevant terminology and the office is unsure whether the applicant view interaction to be reports, replies, deletions, watch time, moderation actions or user clicks. Applicant is required to clarify the type of interaction along with describing the type of interference such as GUI that facilitates these interactions (past + present). Furthermore, the limitation “users corresponding to the past messages” is awkward and unclear. It is unclear whether these users are recipients, senders, viewers, moderators etc. “Appropriate corrections are required”.
Regarding claim 8, the limitation “sending the determined content of the predetermined type to the first user” ..is ambiguous and could mean sending the type/category, the actual prohibited text, or ML-determined content. “Appropriate corrections are required”.
Dependent claims are rejected to as having the same deficiencies as the claims they depend from.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Prabhu (US pub, 2022/0006768) in view of Kanter (US pub, 2015/0163184 A1).
Referring to claims 1, 10 Prabhu teaches a method for messaging, executed by a server (¶[034] [078], server), comprising:
obtaining a message from a first user (Prabhu: ¶ [003], “The message analysis unit may obtain the message, or a portion thereof, at stage 610”);
enabling the first user to amend a portion of the message to generate an amended message (see ¶ [065]-[066], [008]-[009], Prabhu teaches an alert with an edit option. When selected, the user is returned to a text editor that allows modification of the offensive content…e.g “I hate you” is amended with “I am upset with you”); and
displaying the amended message to a second user (¶ [065]-[066], after editing, the text editor includes a selectable icon that instructs the device to send the edited message to a recipient…revised messed is then sent),
Prabhu teaches detecting messages with offensive content and provide user with options for interacting with the offensive message [021] but expressly lacks wherein the message is not displayed to the second user before the portion of the message is amended by the first user (¶ [021], may alert a user that a message with offensive content has been detected. The alert may provide the user with one or more options for interacting with the offensive message prior to the sending, or receipt of, the offensive message).
However, Kanter expressly teaches blocking prohibited comments so they are not displayed to other users. Furthermore, Kanter teaches wherein the message is not displayed to the second user before the portion of the message is amended by the first user (¶ [017]-[018],[026],[030]).
It would have been obvious to an ordinary person skilled in the art at the time invention was made to modify rethink platform that enables edit before send offensive message workflow as taught by Prabhu to incorporate server side content moderation system of Kanter where prohibited comments are blocked (not displayed) to other users in order to prevent offensive content from being displayed to other users while still allowing the sender to correct the message and successfully sent it.
Referring to claim 2, Prabhu teaches the method according to claim 1, further comprising: determining the portion of the message to include a content of a predetermined type (¶ [005]-[007], [026], Determines whether message content include offensive content including identifying offensive trigger words and offensive portions of a message. The offensive trigger word “hate” = predetermined type); and
notifying the first user to remove the content of the predetermined type in order to successfully display the amended message to the second user (¶ [008]-[009], [021],[027], [037], Generates an alert after detecting offensive content and presents an edit option. The user is notified before sending and can replace the offensive portion with a non-offensive portion).
Referring to claim 3, Prabhu teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein the first user and the second user are participants of a live stream (¶ [061]-[063], offensive video can be live streamed).
Referring to claim 4, Prabhu teaches the method according to claim 2, wherein the enabling the first user to amend the portion of the message to generate the amended message includes: displaying a user interface to the first user (see ¶ [027]- [028], Alert dialog appears on the device display and includes selectable edit options); obtaining, in the user interface, an amended portion from the first user ¶ [009], user inputs replaces an offensive portion with a non-offensive portion);
replacing the portion in the message with the amended portion to generate the amended message, wherein the first user does not need to retype other portions of the message (Fig. 10 [009], replacing an offensive portion with a non-offensive portion – user don’t retype other portions).
Referring to claim 5, Prabhu teaches the method according to claim 2, further comprising: saving the message in a temporary memory space within the server until the message is amended by the first user (¶ [023-[027], message resides in the text box and remains available for editing after offensive-content detection).
Referring to claim 6, Prabhu teaches the method according to claim 2, wherein the notifying the first user to remove the content of the predetermined type includes:
displaying a notification box to the first user (¶ [027]-[028], generating alert after detecting offensive content. The alert asks are you sure you want to sent this message?); determining the first user to have selected the notification box [027], [065]-[066]); and displaying a message input interface containing the message to the first user ([065]-[066], the of the message is presented in the text editor where user replaces hate with “am upset with”).
Referring to claim 7, Prabhu teaches the method according to claim 2, further comprising: determining the content of the predetermined type, by a machine learning model, according to past messages from users on a live stream platform and past interaction data from users corresponding to the past messages, wherein the first user and the second user belong to the users on the live stream platform (¶ [061]-[063], offensive video can be live streamed on a live stream platform).
Referring to claim 8, Prabhu teaches the method according to claim 7, further comprising: sending the determined content of the predetermined type to the first user (¶ [096]-[098], determines comments contain offensive content specifically the trigger word hate, identifies replacement and generate alert to the user that the post maybe offensive and recommending replacement ¶ [046]-[047], [052]-[055], [059]-[060]).
Referring to claim 9, Prabhu teaches a system for messaging, comprising one or a plurality of processors, wherein the one or plurality of processors execute a machine-readable instruction to perform:
obtaining a message from a first user (Prabhu: ¶ [003], “The message analysis unit may obtain the message, or a portion thereof, at stage 610”);
enabling the first user to amend a portion of the message to generate an amended message (see ¶ [065]-[066], [008]-[009], Prabhu teaches an alert with an edit option. When selected, the user is returned to a text editor that allows modification of the offensive content…e.g. “I hate you” is amended with “I am upset with you”); and
displaying the amended message to a second user (¶ [065]-[066], after editing, the text editor includes a selectable icon that instructs the device to send the edited message to a recipient…revised messed is then sent),
Prabhu teaches detecting messages with offensive content and provide user with options for interacting with the offensive message [021] but expressly lacks wherein the message is not displayed to the second user before the portion of the message is amended by the first user (¶ [021], may alert a user that a message with offensive content has been detected. The alert may provide the user with one or more options for interacting with the offensive message prior to the sending, or receipt of, the offensive message).
However, Kanter expressly teaches blocking prohibited comments so they are not displayed to other users. Furthermore, Kanter teaches wherein the message is not displayed to the second user before the portion of the message is amended by the first user (¶ Kanter [017]-[018],[026],[030]).
It would have been obvious to an ordinary person skilled in the art at the time invention was made to modify rethink platform that enables edit before send offensive message workflow as taught by Prabhu to incorporate server side content moderation system of Kanter where prohibited comments are blocked (not displayed) to other users in order to prevent offensive content from being displayed to other users while still allowing the sender to correct the message and successful distribution.
Referring to claim 11, Prabhu teaches the method according to claim 4, wherein the message is obtained via a comment typing area in the user interface ([024], Graphical user Interface 111), the notifying process includes displaying a notification message in the user interface ([031], displaying a notification message in the user interface), the portion of the message is amended by the first user via the comment typing area in the user interface, and the amended message is displayed on another user interface displayed to the second user after the portion of the message is amended by the first user (see ¶ [034], [065]-[066], returning the user to a text editor/text box to modify offensive content and teaches replacing “hate” with “am upset with” to generate “I am upset with you”)
Referring to claim 12, Prabhu-Kanter teaches the system according to claim 9, wherein the message is obtained via a user interface displayed on a user terminal of the first user (¶ [022]-[022], [032]-[034]), the portion of the message is amended by the first user via the user interface displayed on the user terminal of the first user (Prabhu: [065]-[066], [107]-[108], and the amended message is displayed on a user interface displayed on a user terminal of the second user after the portion of the message is amended by the first user (Kanter ¶ [015], [018], [020], [026], separate client devices and viewing user content page/user interface, and not displaying prohibited comments to other user)
Referring to claim 13, Prabhu-Kanter teaches the non-transitory computer-readable medium according to claim 10 (Prabhu: ¶ [004], [109]), wherein the message is obtained via a user interface displayed on a user terminal of the first user ([022]-[024], [032]-[034], teaches receiving message/comment input through a graphical user interface, text box, keyboard and send button on the first user device), the portion of the message is amended by the first user via the user interface displayed on the user terminal of the first user (¶[065]-[066], [107]-[108], user selecting an edit option and modifying/replacing offensive content in the text editor), and the amended message is displayed on a user interface displayed on a user terminal of the second user after the portion of the message is amended by the first user (Prabhu: [024], [065]-[066], sending revised messages to the recipient & Kanter ¶ [015], [018], [020], [026] viewing user content page on another user interface and excluding prohibited content from other users; thus amended acceptable message is displayed after amendment).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Applicant's future amendments need to comply with the requirements of MPEP §
714.02, MPEP § 2163.04 and MPEP § 2163.06.
"with respect to newly added or amended claims, applicant should show support in the original disclosure for the new or amended claims." See MPEP § 714.02 and § 2163.06 ("Applicant should * * * specifically point out the support for any amendments made to the disclosure."); and MPEP § 2163.04 ("If applicant amends the claims and points out where and/or how the originally filed disclosure supports the amendment(s), and the examiner finds that the disclosure does not reasonably convey that the inventor had possession of the subject matter of the amendment at the time of the filing of the application, the examiner has the initial burden of presenting evidence or reasoning to explain why persons skilled in the art would not recognize in the disclosure a description of the invention defined by the claims."). See In re Smith, 458 F.2d 1389, 1395, 173 USPQ 679, 683 (CCPA 1972) In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d at 262,191 USPQ at 96 (emphasis added).
"The use of a confusing variety of terms for the same thing should not be permitted”.
New claims and amendments to the claims already in the application should be scrutinized not only for new matter but also for new terminology. While an applicant is not limited to the nomenclature used in the application as filed, he or she should make appropriate amendment of the specification whenever this nomenclature is departed from by amendment of the claims so as to have clear support or antecedent basis in the specification for the new terms appearing in the claims. This is necessary in order to insure certainty in construing the claims in the light of the specification." Ex parte Kotler, 1901 C.D. 62, 95 O.G. 2684 (Comm'r Pat. 1901). See 37 CFR 1.75, MPEP § 608.01 (i) and § 1302.01.
Note that examiners should ensure that the terms and phrases used in claims presented late in prosecution of the application (including claims amended via an examiner's amendment) find clear support or antecedent basis in the description so that the meaning of the terms in the claims may be ascertainable by reference to the description, see 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1 ). If the examiner determines that the claims presented late in prosecution do not comply with 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1), applicant will be required to make appropriate amendment to the description to provide clear support or antecedent basis for the terms appearing in the claims provided no new matter is introduced."
"USPTO personnel are to give claims their broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the supporting disclosure." In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054-55, 44 USPQ2d 1023,1027-28 (Fed. Cir. 1997). MPEP § 2106. "
The examiner also requests, when responding to this office action, support be shown for language added to any original claims on amendment and any new claims. That is, indicate support for newly added claim language by specifically pointing to page(s) and line no(s) in the specification and/or drawing figure(s). This will assist the examiner in prosecuting the application. Applicant is advised to clearly point out the patentable novelty which he or she thinks the claims present, in view of the state of the art disclosed by the references cited or the objections made. He or she must also show how the amendments avoid such references or objections See 37 CFR 1.111 (c).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AFTAB N. KHAN whose telephone number is (571)270-5172. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 8AM-5PM EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Glenton Burgess can be reached on 571-272-3949. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/AFTAB N. KHAN/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2454
Prosecution Insights