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 .
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the amendments and remarks filed on 12 June 2026.
Claims 1-20 are currently pending and have been examined.
Response to Arguments
Applicants argue that the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection under the Alice Corp. vs. CLS Bank Int’l be withdrawn; however the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicants argue that the claims are eligible as the claims are integrated into a practical application (due to the recitation of artificial intelligence) however the Examiner respectfully disagrees. As an intimal note, the general theory behind artificial intelligence is to model a computer around the human brain, such that the computer learns as our brains do. Secondly, while the specification may discuss sophisticated techniques and advanced functions such as machine learning, it is the claims that are deemed eligible or ineligible under §101. Here, the claims are more of a generalized guideline of how to arrange a software model to implement the overarching abstract idea. Thirdly, this argument appears to be whether or not the use of computer or computing components for increased speed and efficiency makes the claims eligible; however the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Nor, in addressing the second step of Alice, does claiming the improved speed or efficiency inherent with applying the abstract idea on a computer provide a sufficient inventive concept. See Bancorp Servs., LLC v. Sun Life Assurance Co. of Can., 687 F.3d 1266, 1278 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (“[T]he fact that the required calculations could be performed more efficiently via a computer does not materially alter the patent eligibility of the claimed subject matter.”); CLS Bank, Int’l v. Alice Corp., 717 F.3d 1269, 1286 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (en banc) aff’d, 134 S. Ct. 2347 (2014) (“[S]imply appending generic computer functionality to lend speed or efficiency to the performance of an otherwise abstract concept does not meaningfully limit claim scope for purposes of patent eligibility.” (citations omitted)). As such, this argument is not persuasive, the claim(s) is/are not patent eligible and the rejection not withdrawn.
Applicants’ arguments fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b) because they amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references.
Applicants’ arguments do not comply with 37 CFR 1.111(c) because they do not 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. Further, they do not show how the amendments avoid such references or objections.
Applicants’ arguments with respect to the prior art have been fully considered but are moot on grounds of new rejection, as necessitated by amendments.
In response to arguments in reference to any depending claims that have not been individually addressed, all rejections made towards these dependent claims are maintained due to a lack of reply by the Applicants in regards to distinctly and specifically pointing out the supposed errors in the Examiner's prior office action (37 CFR 1.111). The Examiner asserts that the Applicants only argue that the dependent claims should be allowable because the independent claims are unobvious and patentable over the prior art.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Step 1: Claims 19 is/are drawn to a system (i.e., a machine), claims 1-18 is/are drawn to a method (i.e., a process), and claims 20 is/are drawn to a non-transitory machine-readable storage medium (i.e., a manufacture). As such, claims 1-20 is/are drawn to one of the statutory categories of invention (Step 1: YES).
Step 2A - Prong One: In prong one of step 2A, the claim(s) is/are analyzed to evaluate whether it/they recite(s) a judicial exception.
Representative Claim 1:
monitoring registration of first review content by a customer on a review page;
analyzing content included in the first review content through the pre-trained artificial intelligence model upon a result of the monitoring indicating that the first review content has been registered on the review page;
classifying the first review content into a rating of the multiple review content ratings based on a result of the analyzing in real time,, each of the multiple review content ratings being associated with a corresponding one of multiple different review management processes; and
performing one of the multiple different review management processes associated with the rating of the first review content to handle the first review content;
creating...a first input prompt for the generative artificial intelligence model using at least specific information extracted from the first review content and business information registered under an account of a business operator, the business information including at least one of a trade name, an industry type, or a business description;
obtaining, a draft reply for the first review content from the generative artificial intelligence model, using the first input prompt as an input to the generative artificial intelligence model; and
providing the draft reply on a management page that is configured to manage the review page.
As noted by the claim limitations above, the independent claimed invention discusses providing a review management service. This is considered to be an abstract idea because it is a business activity of managing reviews for a business, which falls under “certain methods of organizing human activity.”
See MPEP 2106.
As such, the Examiner concludes that claim 1 recites an abstract idea (Step 2A – Prong One: YES).
Step 2A - Prong Two: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, claims 1 and 16 includes the following additional element(s): training, by processing circuitry of a system configured to provide a review management service, an artificial intelligence model based on multiple review content ratings as training data to generate a pre-trained artificial intelligence model, the pre-trained artificial intelligence model including a generative artificial intelligence model that has been trained to generate a draft reply for review content in response to an input prompt related to the review content as an input, the artificial intelligence model configured to perform sentiment analysis, topic analysis, and text classification through an analysis of text content by considering a context and a nuance of the text content, each of the multiple review content ratings having matching text serving as a criterion for distinguishing the rating. This/these additional elements individually or in combination do not integrate the exception into a practical application because they do no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (i.e., machine learning) (see MPEP 2106.05(h)). Accordingly, these additional element(s) do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea.
The Examiner has therefore determined that the additional elements, or combination of additional elements, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Accordingly, the claim(s) is/are directed to an abstract idea (Step 2A – Prong two: NO).
Step 2B: Claims 1 and 16 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element(s) do no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (i.e., machine learning) (see MPEP 2106.05(h)), which does not render a claim as being significantly more than the judicial exception. Accordingly, claims 1 and 16 is/are ineligible.
The Examiner has therefore determined that no additional element, or combination of additional claims elements is/are sufficient to ensure the claim(s) amount to significantly more than the abstract idea identified above (Step 2B: NO).
Therefore, claim 1 is not eligible subject matter under 35 USC 101.
Dependent claim(s) 2-4, 7, 11 merely further limit the abstract idea and do not recite any additional elements beyond those already recited in claim 1, 6 and 10. Therefore claim(s) 2-4, 7, 11 are ineligible.
Dependent claim(s) 5-6, 9, 12, 14 and 15 further include(s) the additional element(s): a business operator terminal (claim 5-6, 9, 12, 14 and 15), . This/these additional element(s) alone or in ordered combination does no more than merely use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)), which does not integrate the claim(s) into a practical application nor does it render a claim as being significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, claim(s) 5-6, 9, 12, 14 and 15 is/are ineligible.
Dependent claim(s) 8, 10 and 13 further include(s) the additional element(s): a generative artificial intelligence model (claim 8, 10 and 13), the business operator terminal (claim 13). This/these additional element(s) alone or in ordered combination do no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (i.e., machine learning) (see MPEP 2106.05(h)), which does not integrate the claim(s) into a practical application nor does it render a claim as being significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, claim(s) 8, 10, and 13 is/are ineligible.
Dependent claim(s) 17 further include(s) the additional element(s): a business operator terminal. This/these additional element(s) alone or in ordered combination does no more than merely use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)), which does not integrate the claim(s) into a practical application nor does it render a claim as being significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, claim(s) 17 is/are ineligible.
Dependent claim(s) 18 further include(s) the additional element(s): a pre-trained artificial intelligence model. This/these additional element(s) alone or in ordered combination do no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (i.e., machine learning) (see MPEP 2106.05(h)), which does not integrate the claim(s) into a practical application nor does it render a claim as being significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, claim(s) 18 is/are ineligible.
Claim 19 is parallel in nature to claims 1 and 16. Claim 19 recites an abstract idea similar in nature to claims 1 and 16. Furthermore, claim 19 recites the following additional elements: a memory configured to store computer-readable instructions, at least one processor configured to execute the computer-readable instructions such that the processor is configured to cause the review management system to perform operations, and a pre-trained artificial intelligence model. These additional elements do no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (i.e., machine learning) (see MPEP 2106.05(h)), which does not integrate the claim into a practical application nor does it render a claim as being significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 20 is parallel in nature to claims 1 and 16. Claim 20 recites an abstract idea similar in nature to claims 1 and 16. Furthermore, claim 20 recites the following additional elements: a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium storing a program thereon, which when executed by one or more processors in an electronic device, causes the electronic device to implement a method, and a pre-trained artificial intelligence model. These additional elements do no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (i.e., machine learning) (see MPEP 2106.05(h)), which does not integrate the claim into a practical application nor does it render a claim as being significantly more than the abstract idea.
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.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-6, 8-11, and 16-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mala (US 20240338736 A1) in view of Deluca (US 20180060338 A1).
Regarding claims 1 and 16, Mala teaches a method of providing a review management service, comprising:
training, by processing circuitry of a system configured to provide a review management service, an artificial intelligence model based on multiple review content ratings as training data to generate a pre-trained artificial intelligence model, the pre-trained artificial intelligence model including a generative artificial intelligence model that has been trained to generate a draft reply for review content in response to an input prompt related to the review content as an input, (Paragraph [0041]: “The autopilot uses an in-house trained AI, which then automatically trains the system integrated Open AI service. The system then passes the customer review, together with system suggestions including the trained specifications, to the Open AI (or any other AI source) to receive the final response of that particular review”; Paragraph [0037] discussing the ability to ascertain positive and negative phrases, trending keywords, Paragraph [0039} review sentiment)
monitoring registration of first review content by a customer on a review page; (Paragraph [0041] “The autopilot feature ensures that the above-mentioned process is fully automated. As soon as a review comes through, it will trigger the internal process algorithm to execute the AI automated response.”)
analyzing content included in the first review content through the pre-trained artificial intelligence model upon a result of the monitoring indicating that the first review content has been registered on the review page; (Paragraph [0041] “The autopilot uses an in-house trained AI, which then automatically trains the system integrated Open AI service. […] The autopilot feature ensures that the above-mentioned process is fully automated. As soon as a review comes through, it will trigger the internal process algorithm to execute the AI automated response.”)
classifying the first review content into a rating of the multiple review content ratings based on a result of the analyzing in real time,, each of the multiple review content ratings being associated with a corresponding one of multiple different review management processes; (Paragraph [0040] “These settings include the settings of the AI where the client may determine how the AI should respond for each rating star (e.g., 1-5 stars) of each individual business location. […] the client […] selects 118 whether the AI autopilot is on or off for that location, and then for each rating start (one star 120, two stars 122, three stars 124, four stars 126 and five stars 128) the client selects what automation settings to include 130”; Fig. 6) and
performing one of the multiple different review management processes associated with the rating of the first review content to handle the first review content (Paragraph [0040] “for each rating start (one star 120, two stars 122, three stars 124, four stars 126 and five stars 128) the client selects what automation settings to include 130A”; Paragraph [0041] “The system then passes the customer review, together with system suggestions including the trained specifications, to the Open AI (or any other AI source) to receive the final response of that particular review. The response is then displayed to the user on the system as well as automatically posted online. Such automatic posting can be switched to approved posting within the settings of the AI response.”; Fig. 6);
creating, by the processing circuitry, a first input prompt for the generative artificial intelligence model using at least specific information extracted from the first review content and business information registered under an account of a business operator, the business information including at least one of a trade name, an industry type, or a business description (Paragraph [0016] “utilities AI to respond to customer issues;” Paragraph [0038] “First, an AI automatic responder will be described. Referring to FIG. 4, a simplified logic diagram depicts client platform navigation from the dashboard 28 to the AI autoresponder 86. From the autoresponder 86, the client has the option 88 of, among other things, navigating to their AI dashboard 90, or to an AI settings page 92. The AI dashboard 90 displays all AI statistics per client business location, group of locations or all locations. It provides the client with a very useful snapshot of how the AI is performing. The AI settings page 92 enables the client to determine how the AI should respond to customer matter” Paragraph [0039] discussing inclusion of ChatGPT) (Examiner interprets the use of Open AI, ChatGPT, and other AI sources as the inclusion of a generative artificial intelligence model);
obtaining, by the processing circuitry, a draft reply for the first review content from the generative artificial intelligence model, using the first input prompt as an input to the generative artificial intelligence model (Paragraph [0041] “The autopilot uses an in-house trained AI, which then automatically trains the system integrated Open AI service. The system then passes the customer review, together with system suggestions including the trained specifications, to the Open AI (or any other AI source) to receive the final response of that particular review. The response is then displayed to the user on the system as well as automatically posted online. Such automatic posting can be switched to approved posting within the settings of the AI response”); and
providing the draft reply on a management page that is configured to manage the review page (Paragraph [0041] “The autopilot uses an in-house trained AI, which then automatically trains the system integrated Open AI service. The system then passes the customer review, together with system suggestions including the trained specifications, to the Open AI (or any other AI source) to receive the final response of that particular review. The response is then displayed to the user on the system as well as automatically posted online. Such automatic posting can be switched to approved posting within the settings of the AI response”)
Mala does not teach:
the artificial intelligence model configured to perform sentiment analysis, topic analysis, and text classification through an analysis of text content by considering a context and a nuance of the text content, each of the multiple review content ratings having matching text serving as a criterion for distinguishing the rating.
However, Deluca teaches:
the artificial intelligence model configured to perform sentiment analysis, topic analysis, and text classification through an analysis of text content by considering a context and a nuance of the text content, each of the multiple review content ratings having matching text serving as a criterion for distinguishing the rating. (Paragraph [0047] “sentiment filter program 110 can include parameters for displaying the words that exceed a negative sentiment threshold that obfuscates the identified words that meet the negative sentiment threshold.”; step 206 and 208 of Fig. 3 of Deluca)
This step of Deluca is applicable to the method of Mala as they both share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to performing sentiment analysis on comments posted on the internet. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Mala to incorporate determining whether a comment should be exposed on a webpage as taught by Deluca. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify Mala in order to review and filter comments that are inappropriate in a timely manner (see paragraph [0009] of Deluca).
Regarding claim 2, Mala in view of Deluca teaches the method of claim 1. Mala further teaches wherein the analyzing includes:
classifying the first review content into one of the multiple review content ratings based on whether the first review content is a positive review or a negative review through an analysis of content included in the review first content; (Paragraph [0040] “These settings include the settings of the AI where the client may determine how the AI should respond for each rating star (e.g., 1-5 stars) of each individual business location. […] the client […] selects 118 whether the AI autopilot is on or off for that location, and then for each rating start (one star 120, two stars 122, three stars 124, four stars 126 and five stars 128) the client selects what automation settings to include 130”; Fig. 6).
Mala does not teach:
determining whether the first review content is exposed on the review page based on which degree of negative review the first review content corresponds to among a plurality of negative reviews.
However, Deluca teaches:
determining whether the first review content is exposed on the review page based on which degree of negative review the first review content corresponds to among a plurality of negative reviews. (Paragraph [0047] “sentiment filter program 110 can include parameters for displaying the words that exceed a negative sentiment threshold that obfuscates the identified words that meet the negative sentiment threshold.”; step 206 and 208 of Fig. 3 of Deluca)
This step of Deluca is applicable to the method of Mala as they both share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to performing sentiment analysis on comments posted on the internet. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Mala to incorporate determining whether a comment should be exposed on a webpage as taught by Deluca. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify Mala in order to review and filter comments that are inappropriate in a timely manner (see paragraph [0009] of Deluca).
Regarding claim 3, Mala in view of Deluca teaches the method of claim 2. Mala does not teach:
wherein, when the first review content is classified as the negative review of a highest rating among the multiple content review ratings, in response to the result of the monitoring, the determining determines that the review content is processed not to be exposed on the review page so that the first review content is not exposed to users accessing the review page.
However, Deluca teaches:
wherein, when the first review content is classified as the negative review of a highest rating among the multiple content review ratings, in response to the result of the monitoring, the determining determines that the review content is processed not to be exposed on the review page so that the first review content is not exposed to users accessing the review page. (Paragraph [0047] “sentiment filter program 110 can include parameters for displaying the words that exceed a negative sentiment threshold that obfuscates the identified words that meet the negative sentiment threshold.”; step 206 and 208 of Fig. 3 of Deluca)
The motivation for making this modification to the teachings of Mala is the same as that set forth above, in the rejection of claim 2.
Additionally, in regard to claim 3, the Examiner further notes the recited “when” on line 1 does not move to distinguish the claimed invention from the cited art. This phrase is a conditional/contingent limitation with the noted determining step(s) not necessarily performed. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met. Language that suggests or makes optional but does not require steps to be performed or does not limit a claim to a particular structure does not limit the scope of a claim or claim limitation. [See Ex parte Schulhauser, Appeal 2013-007847 (PTAB April 28, 2016) for an analysis of contingent claim limitations in the context of both method claims and system claims.; MPEP §2111.04 II].
Regarding claim 4, Mala in view of Deluca teaches the method of claim 3. Mala teaches:
a business operator account. (Paragraph [0034] “This is their first step in starting an online presence. The user is then prompted to enter all other business information”)
Mala does not teach:
wherein, when the first review content is classified as the negative review of the highest rating, a business operator account of the review page is limited in provision of notification information indicating that the first review content has been registered on the review page.
However Deluca teaches:
wherein, when the first review content is classified as the negative review of the highest rating, a business operator account of the review page is limited in provision of notification information indicating that the first review content has been registered on the review page. (Paragraph [0047] “sentiment filter program 110 can include parameters for displaying the words that exceed a negative sentiment threshold that obfuscates the identified words that meet the negative sentiment threshold.”; step 206 and 208 of Fig. 3 of Deluca)
The motivation for making this modification to the teachings of Mala is the same as that set forth above, in the rejection of claim 2.
Additionally, in regard to claim 4, the Examiner further notes the recited “when” on line 1 does not move to distinguish the claimed invention from the cited art. This phrase is a conditional/contingent limitation with the noted limiting step(s) not necessarily performed. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met. Language that suggests or makes optional but does not require steps to be performed or does not limit a claim to a particular structure does not limit the scope of a claim or claim limitation. [See Ex parte Schulhauser, Appeal 2013-007847 (PTAB April 28, 2016) for an analysis of contingent claim limitations in the context of both method claims and system claims.; MPEP §2111.04 II].
Regarding claim 5, Mala in view of Deluca teaches the method of claim 3. Mala further teaches:
further comprising, when the first review content is classified as the negative review of a lower rating than the negative review of the highest rating, in response to the result of the monitoring, transmitting notification information indicating that the first review content has been registered on the review page is transmitted to a business operator terminal with a business operator account logged in. (Paragraph [0034] “This is their first step in starting an online presence. The user is then prompted to enter all other business information, which will also be pushed to partner sites. Accordingly, a new online presence on the system local platform database as well as partner sites will be created. The new account is authenticated 26 and the client lands on their dashboard 28.”; Examiner notes Fig. 3, 5 and associated paragraphs show a business operator’s dashboard with notifications regarding various rating with different starts.)
Additionally, in regard to claim 5, the Examiner further notes the recited “when” on line 1 does not move to distinguish the claimed invention from the cited art. This phrase is a conditional/contingent limitation with the noted transmitting step(s) not necessarily performed. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met. Language that suggests or makes optional but does not require steps to be performed or does not limit a claim to a particular structure does not limit the scope of a claim or claim limitation. [See Ex parte Schulhauser, Appeal 2013-007847 (PTAB April 28, 2016) for an analysis of contingent claim limitations in the context of both method claims and system claims.; MPEP §2111.04 II].
Regarding claim 6, Mala in view of Deluca teaches the method of claim 5. Mala further teaches:
providing a review management page to the business operator terminal of the business operator account, wherein the review management page includes guide information along with the first review content, the guide information indicating that the first review content corresponding to the negative review includes negative content. (Fig. 3, Fig. 5 and associated paragraphs)
Regarding claim 8, Mala in view of Deluca teaches the method of claim 2. Mala further teaches:
wherein at least one of the multiple different review management processes includes providing a draft reply to the first review content using a generative artificial intelligence model. (Paragraph [0041] “The system then passes the customer review, together with system suggestions including the trained specifications, to the Open AI (or any other AI source) to receive the final response of that particular review. The response is then displayed to the user on the system […] Such automatic posting can be switched to approved posting within the settings of the AI response.”)
Regarding claim 9, Mala in view of Deluca teaches the method of claim 8. Mala further teaches:
providing a review management page to a business operator terminal of a business operator account, wherein the review management page includes the first review content and the draft reply for the first review content as a pair. (Paragraph [0041] “The system then passes the customer review, together with system suggestions including the trained specifications, to the Open AI (or any other AI source) to receive the final response of that particular review. The response is then displayed to the user on the system […] Such automatic posting can be switched to approved posting within the settings of the AI response.”)
Regarding claim 10, Mala in view of Deluca teaches the method of claim 9. Mala further teaches:
generating a prompt to be input into the generative artificial intelligence model, wherein the generating includes generating the prompt using business information registered under the business operator account and feature information extracted from the first review content. (Paragraph [0041] “The system then passes the customer review, together with system suggestions including the trained specifications, to the Open AI (or any other AI source) to receive the final response of that particular review. The response is then displayed to the user on the system […] Such automatic posting can be switched to approved posting within the settings of the AI response.”)
Regarding claim 11, Mala in view of Deluca teaches the method of claim 10. Mala further teaches:
wherein the business information includes at least one of trade name, industry type, or business description registered under the business operator account, (Paragraph [0041] “The system then passes the […] system suggestions including the trained specifications, to the Open AI (or any other AI source) to receive the final response of that particular review.”; Fig. 6 shows business descriptors such as the location/address, etc. are passed to the AI model in the specifications) and
the feature information includes at least one of video, text, and/or keyword information included in the first review content, information on a customer who created the first review content, visit date and/or visit count for a business where the first review content is registered, or information on a product that is a subject of the first review content. (Paragraph [0041] “The system then passes the customer review, […] to the Open AI (or any other AI source) to receive the final response of that particular review.”)
Regarding claim 17, Mala in view of Deluca teaches the method of claim 16. Mala further teaches:
registering the draft reply as a reply to the first review content on the review page, based on a registration request received from a business operator terminal with a business operator account logged in on a review management page. (Paragraph [0041] “The system then passes the customer review, together with system suggestions including the trained specifications, to the Open AI (or any other AI source) to receive the final response of that particular review. The response is then displayed to the user on the system as well as automatically posted online. Such automatic posting can be switched to approved posting within the settings of the AI response.”; Examiner notes the client that approves the posting is the business.)
Regarding claim 18, Mala in view of Deluca teaches the method of claim 16. Mala further teaches:
wherein the obtaining the draft reply includes generating the draft reply only when the first review content is classified into a rating that corresponds to a condition among the multiple review content ratings. (Paragraph [0040] “These settings include the settings of the AI where the client may determine how the AI should respond for each rating star (e.g., 1-5 stars) of each individual business location. […] the client […] selects 118 whether the AI autopilot is on or off for that location, and then for each rating start (one star 120, two stars 122, three stars 124, four stars 126 and five stars 128) the client selects what automation settings to include 130”; Fig. 6) Fig. 6; Examiner notes, Fig. 6 shows autoreplies can be turned off for ratings of a certain number of stars. )
Claim 19:
Claim(s) 19 is/are directed to a system. Claim(s) 19 recite limitations parallel in nature as those addressed above for claim(s) 1, which are directed towards method. Claim(s) 19 is/are therefore rejected for the same reasons as set above for claim(s) 1. Claim 19 further recites a memory configured to store computer-readable instructions and at least one processor configured to execute the computer-readable instructions such that the processor is configured to cause the review management system to perform operations (see Paragraph [0032] and Fig. 1 of Mala).
Claim 20:
Claim(s) 20 is/are directed to a non-transitory computer-readable medium. Claim(s) 20 recite limitations parallel in nature as those addressed above for claim(s) 1, which are directed towards a method. Claim(s) 20 is/are therefore rejected for the same reasons as set above for claim(s) 1. Claim 20 further recites a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium storing a program thereon, which when executed by one or more processors in an electronic device, causes the electronic device to implement a method (see Paragraph [0032] and Fig. 1 of Mala).
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mala (US 20240338736 A1) in view of Deluca (US 20180060338 A1) in further view of Fletcher (see attached NPL).
Regarding claim 7, Mala in view of Deluca teaches the method of claim 6. Mala in view of Deluca does not teach:
wherein the guide information further includes a post suspension request button to suspend posting of the first review content from the review page.
However, Fletcher teaches:
wherein the guide information further includes a post suspension request button to suspend posting of the first review content from the review page. (see Page 3 “ How to remove fake google reviews” and “flag as inappropriate button” of Fletcher)
This step of Fletcher is applicable to the method of Mala as they both share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to managing reviews for companies. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Mala to incorporate a post suspension request button as taught by Fletcher. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify Mala in order to protect businesses from false statements and allegations (see Page 1 of Fletcher).
Claim(s) 12-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mala (US 20240338736 A1) in view of Deluca (US 20180060338 A1) in further view of Miyajima (US 20230153364 A1).
Regarding claim 12, Mala in view of Deluca teaches the method of claim 10. Mala in view of Deluca does not teach:
providing a function icon for requesting another draft reply, along with the draft reply, in a specific area of the review management page where the draft reply is provided, generating the draft reply using the prompt when the function icon is selected from the business operator terminal for a first time, and generating another draft reply using the prompt when the function icon is selected from the business operator terminal for a second time after the first time.
However, Miyajima teaches:
providing a function icon for requesting another draft reply, along with the draft reply, in a specific area of the review management page where the draft reply is provided, generating the draft reply using the prompt when the function icon is selected from the business operator terminal for a first time and generating another draft reply using the prompt when the function icon is selected from the business operator terminal for a second time after the first time. (Paragraph [0190] “An AI creation redo button 607 is a button for discarding a newly created article content before publication and recreating it. Specifically, when receiving an operation such as a click of the button from the user, the control unit 190 of the terminal apparatus 10A presents to the user a screen for discarding a newly created, pre-published article content and recreating it. At this time, the control unit 190 of the terminal apparatus 10A may display the words used when the article content was created to the user in a different faint. This allows the user to know on which words the article content was based before it was discarded.”; Fig. 6 shows a variety of article creation buttons including a redo button (see Paragraph [0190]), manual/automatic creation button (see Paragraphs [0185] and [0186]), etc.).
This step of Miyajima is applicable to the method of Mala as they both share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to using artificial intelligence to generate replies. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Mala to incorporate a function icon for generating draft replies as taught by Miyajima. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify Mala in order to receive operations regarding creating article contents from users through a device (see paragraph [0179] of Miyajima).
Regarding claim 13, Mala in view of Deluca teaches the method of claim 12. Mala in view of Deluca does not teach:
wherein the generating the draft reply includes generating, by the generative artificial intelligence model, a new draft reply using the prompt each time the function icon is selected from the business operator terminal, until reaching a set number of times.
However, Miyajima teaches:
wherein the generating the draft reply includes generating, by the generative artificial intelligence model, a new draft reply using the prompt each time the function icon is selected from the business operator terminal, until reaching a set number of times. (Fig. 6 of Miyajima shows an automatic creation button 604 (Paragraph [0185]) and manual creation button 605 (Paragraph [0186]). El. 603 of Fig. 6 of Miyajima shows that each button has a limited number of uses.)
The motivation for making this modification to the teachings of Mala is the same as that set forth above, in the rejection of claim 12.
Regarding claim 14, Mala in view of Deluca teaches the method of claim 12. Mala further teaches:
selecting one of the draft reply or the another draft reply from the business operator terminal; (Paragraph [0041] “The system then passes the customer review, together with system suggestions including the trained specifications, to the Open AI (or any other AI source) to receive the final response of that particular review. The response is then displayed to the user on the system […] Such automatic posting can be switched to approved posting within the settings of the AI response.”) and
registering the selected one of the draft reply or the another draft reply as a reply to the first review content on the review page. (Paragraph [0041] “The system then passes the customer review, together with system suggestions including the trained specifications, to the Open AI (or any other AI source) to receive the final response of that particular review. The response is then displayed to the user on the system […] Such automatic posting can be switched to approved posting within the settings of the AI response.”)
Regarding claim 15, Mala in view of Deluca teaches the method of claim 9. Mala further teaches:
a draft reply. (Paragraph [0041] “The system then passes the customer review, together with system suggestions including the trained specifications, to the Open AI (or any other AI source) to receive the final response of that particular review. The response is then displayed to the user on the system as well as automatically posted online. Such automatic posting can be switched to approved posting within the settings of the AI response.”; Fig. 6)
Mala in view of Deluca does not teach:
providing a function icon for requesting an edit of the draft reply, along with the draft reply, in a specific area of the review management page where the draft reply is provided such that when the function icon is selected, the draft reply is changed to an editable state, and the draft reply is configured to be edited based on information received through the business operator terminal.
However, Miyajima teaches:
providing a function icon for requesting an edit of the reply, along with the reply, in a specific area of the review management page where the reply is provided such that when the function icon is selected, the reply is changed to an editable state, and the reply is configured to be edited based on information received through the business operator terminal. (Paragraph [0187] “A rewrite edit button 606 is a button for re-editing an already created article content. Specifically, when receiving an operation such as a click of the button from the user, the control unit 190 of the terminal apparatus 10A presents a screen for re-editing an article content created and published in the past to the user. On the screen for re-editing, the terminal apparatus 10A receives from the user an addition/correction of information of words included in the article content. The control unit 190 of the terminal apparatus 10A transmits the added/corrected information of words to the server 20. The control unit 203 of the server 20 re-edits the article content based on the received information of words and the trained model, and transmits the edited article content to the terminal apparatus 10A.”; Fig. 6 of Miyajima)
The motivation for making this modification to the teachings of Mala is the same as that set forth above, in the rejection of claim 12.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to ANDREW B WHITAKER whose telephone number is (571)270-7563. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F, 8am-5pm, EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner’s supervisor, Lynda Jasmin can be reached on (571) 272-6782. 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 Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-
automated- interview-request-air-form
/ANDREW B WHITAKER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3629
Prosecution Insights