DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-20 have been examined and are pending.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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 an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) determining user contribution. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because it is a method of organizing human activity. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the generically recited computer elements do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer.
Claims 11-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because the are directed to a computer readable medium which under its broadest reasonable interpretation may include propagation signals. Amending in the term “non-transitory” would overcome such an interpretation.
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.
Claims 1, 2, 4-8, 11, 12, 14-17, 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pub. No. 2013/0203485 to Walker et al. (hereinafter “Walker”) and further in view of US Pub. No. 2007/0214037 to Shubert et al. (hereinafter “Shubert”).
As to Claim 1, Walker discloses a method for moderating an anonymous discussion, the method comprising:
hosting the anonymous discussion among a plurality of participants and a moderator (Paragraph [0107] of Walker discloses the system is used to identify players currently at gaming devices 104 who also are suitable potential participants in the focus group. Those players that accept an invitation to participate, become participants. In Step S3, the topic is communicated to the participants and the participants comments are relayed back. In Step S4, the moderator (and/or the system) verifies that each of the participants is in fact participating in the focus group),
providing the moderator with contribution analysis for each of the plurality of participants during the anonymous discussion, the contribution analysis indicating a participation level for the associated participant (Paragraph [0107] of Walker discloses upon determining that the participants are actually participating, in Step S5 the moderator (and/or the system) provides compensation to the participants via the gaming device. Paragraph [0118] of Walker discloses Reasons for removing a participant from a focus group may include: the participant has contributed too little to the discussion; the participant has ceased to contribute; the participant has dominated the discussion); and
after the anonymous discussion, analyzing each participant to determine whether the participant has met contribution criteria (Paragraph [0107] of Walker discloses upon determining that the participants are actually participating, in Step S5 the moderator (and/or the system) provides compensation to the participants via the gaming device).
Walker does not explicitly disclose anonymous. Paragraph [0078] of Walker discloses using alias, ID number, avatar or color to represent participants.
However, Shubert discloses this. Paragraph [0028] of Shubert discloses the collected user-provided anonymous data comprises responses to questions resulting from the user's participation in a focus group. The focus group questions are designed so that user answers do not individually identify the user. The user provides the unique identifier associated with the user's instrument to the focus group moderator, and then provides answers to anonymous focus group questions.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention to combine the focus group system as disclosed by Walker, with being anonymous as disclosed by Shubert. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine to apply a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results. Walker and Shubert are directed toward focus group systems and as such it would be obvious to use the techniques of one in the other. Such a combination would improve user privacy.
As to Claim 2, Walker-Shubert discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising: in response to determine that a participant has met contribution criteria, authorizing payment to the participant (Paragraph [0107] of Walker discloses upon determining that the participants are actually participating, in Step S5 the moderator (and/or the system) provides compensation to the participants via the gaming device).
As to Claim 4, Walker-Shubert discloses the method of claim 1, wherein hosting the anonymous discussion comprises, for each participant: determining whether the participant has provided informed consent; and in response to determining that the participant has not provided informed consent, request informed consent from the participant (Paragraph [0107] of Walker discloses Those players that accept an invitation to participate, become participants. Paragraph [0134] of Walker discloses Verification of participation may include, for example, receiving a signal from a player signifying the player's agreement to participate in the focus group).
As to Claim 5, Walker-Shubert discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising: receiving an agenda for the anonymous discussion, the agenda comprising a plurality of topics (Paragraph [0107] of Walker discloses a topic for discussion by the focus group is received from a marketer. The topic may include specific questions);
in response to determining that an individual topic has been discussed in the anonymous discussion, updating the agenda to indicate the individual topic has been met (Paragraph [0082] of Walker discloses a questions database 208 may be a list of discussion topics and/or questions that the focus group moderator may wish to present to participants. A questions database 208 may include question and answer tracking information); and
providing the moderator with the updated agenda during the anonymous discussion (Paragraph [0082] of Walker discloses Based upon participant's comments, the questions may be altered and new questions may be added).
As to Claim 6, Walker-Shubert discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the contribution analysis indicating the participation level for the associated participant comprises a word count from discussion contributions by the associated participant (Paragraph [0092] of Walker discloses then $2 for each comment made. Paragraph [0137] of Walker discloses a participant may be compensated when, for example, the participant has agreed to join the focus group; the participant has joined the focus group; the participant has completed the focus group; the participant has participated by making comments in the focus group; the participant has been in the focus group for a set period of time; other focus group participants have voted that the participant should receive compensation; other focus group participants have agreed with the comments of the individual participant; other participants make comments based upon the comments of the individual participant; the participant has contributed good ideas; the participant has contributed original ideas; the participant has contributed truthfully and/or thoughtfully; the participant has brought the focus group through a road block in the discussion; and/or the participant has built upon a previously made comment).
As to Claim 7, Walker-Shubert discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the contribution analysis indicating the participation level for the associated participant comprises a percentage of a total word count from discussion contributions by the associated participant compared to a target contribution criteria word count (Paragraph [0092] of Walker discloses then $2 for each comment made. Paragraph [0137] of Walker discloses a participant may be compensated when, for example, the participant has agreed to join the focus group; the participant has joined the focus group; the participant has completed the focus group; the participant has participated by making comments in the focus group; the participant has been in the focus group for a set period of time; other focus group participants have voted that the participant should receive compensation; other focus group participants have agreed with the comments of the individual participant; other participants make comments based upon the comments of the individual participant; the participant has contributed good ideas; the participant has contributed original ideas; the participant has contributed truthfully and/or thoughtfully; the participant has brought the focus group through a road block in the discussion; and/or the participant has built upon a previously made comment Paragraph [0118] of Walker discloses the participant has dominated the discussion).
As to Claim 8, Walker-Shubert discloses the method of claim 1, wherein hosting the anonymous discussion comprises: receiving a speech contribution from a participant; converting the speech contribution to text using speech-to-text processing; and storing the text of the speech contribution (Paragraph [0104] of Walker discloses the capture and translation of participant comments into a current participant database 216 may be performed using voice recognition systems and artificial intelligence as is known in the art).
As to Claim 11, Walker discloses a computer readable medium tangibly encoded with a computer program executable by a processor to perform actions for moderating an anonymous discussion, the actions comprising:
hosting the anonymous discussion among a plurality of participants and a moderator (Paragraph [0107] of Walker discloses the system is used to identify players currently at gaming devices 104 who also are suitable potential participants in the focus group. Those players that accept an invitation to participate, become participants. In Step S3, the topic is communicated to the participants and the participants comments are relayed back. In Step S4, the moderator (and/or the system) verifies that each of the participants is in fact participating in the focus group),
providing the moderator with contribution analysis for each of the plurality of participants during the anonymous discussion, the contribution analysis indicating a participation level for the associated participant (Paragraph [0107] of Walker discloses upon determining that the participants are actually participating, in Step S5 the moderator (and/or the system) provides compensation to the participants via the gaming device. Paragraph [0118] of Walker discloses Reasons for removing a participant from a focus group may include: the participant has contributed too little to the discussion; the participant has ceased to contribute; the participant has dominated the discussion); and
after the anonymous discussion, analyzing each participant to determine whether the participant has met contribution criteria (Paragraph [0107] of Walker discloses upon determining that the participants are actually participating, in Step S5 the moderator (and/or the system) provides compensation to the participants via the gaming device).
Walker does not explicitly disclose anonymous. Paragraph [0078] of Walker discloses using alias, ID number, avatar or color to represent participants.
However, Shubert discloses this. Paragraph [0028] of Shubert discloses the collected user-provided anonymous data comprises responses to questions resulting from the user's participation in a focus group. The focus group questions are designed so that user answers do not individually identify the user. The user provides the unique identifier associated with the user's instrument to the focus group moderator, and then provides answers to anonymous focus group questions.
Examiner recites the same rationale to combine used for claim 1.
As to Claim 12, Walker-Shubert discloses the computer readable medium of claim 11, the actions further comprising: in response to determine that a participant has met contribution criteria, authorizing payment to the participant (Paragraph [0107] of Walker discloses upon determining that the participants are actually participating, in Step S5 the moderator (and/or the system) provides compensation to the participants via the gaming device).
As to Claim 14, Walker-Shubert discloses the computer readable medium of claim 11, the actions further comprising: receiving an agenda for the anonymous discussion, the agenda comprising a plurality of topics (Paragraph [0107] of Walker discloses a topic for discussion by the focus group is received from a marketer. The topic may include specific questions);
in response to determining that an individual topic has been discussed in the anonymous discussion, updating the agenda to indicate the individual topic has been met (Paragraph [0082] of Walker discloses a questions database 208 may be a list of discussion topics and/or questions that the focus group moderator may wish to present to participants. A questions database 208 may include question and answer tracking information); and
providing the moderator with the updated agenda during the anonymous discussion (Paragraph [0082] of Walker discloses Based upon participant's comments, the questions may be altered and new questions may be added).
As to Claim 15, Walker-Shubert discloses the computer readable medium of claim 11, wherein the contribution analysis indicating the participation level for the associated participant comprises a word count from discussion contributions by the associated participant (Paragraph [0092] of Walker discloses then $2 for each comment made. Paragraph [0137] of Walker discloses a participant may be compensated when, for example, the participant has agreed to join the focus group; the participant has joined the focus group; the participant has completed the focus group; the participant has participated by making comments in the focus group; the participant has been in the focus group for a set period of time; other focus group participants have voted that the participant should receive compensation; other focus group participants have agreed with the comments of the individual participant; other participants make comments based upon the comments of the individual participant; the participant has contributed good ideas; the participant has contributed original ideas; the participant has contributed truthfully and/or thoughtfully; the participant has brought the focus group through a road block in the discussion; and/or the participant has built upon a previously made comment).
As to Claim 16, Walker discloses an apparatus for moderating an anonymous discussion, the apparatus comprising at least one processor; and at least one memory including computer program code, the at least one memory and the computer program code configured to, with the at least one processor, cause the apparatus to perform at least the following:
to host the anonymous discussion among a plurality of participants and a moderator (Paragraph [0107] of Walker discloses the system is used to identify players currently at gaming devices 104 who also are suitable potential participants in the focus group. Those players that accept an invitation to participate, become participants. In Step S3, the topic is communicated to the participants and the participants comments are relayed back. In Step S4, the moderator (and/or the system) verifies that each of the participants is in fact participating in the focus group),
to provide the moderator with contribution analysis for each of the plurality of participants during the anonymous discussion, the contribution analysis indicating a participation level for the associated participant (Paragraph [0107] of Walker discloses upon determining that the participants are actually participating, in Step S5 the moderator (and/or the system) provides compensation to the participants via the gaming device. Paragraph [0118] of Walker discloses Reasons for removing a participant from a focus group may include: the participant has contributed too little to the discussion; the participant has ceased to contribute; the participant has dominated the discussion); and
after the anonymous discussion, to analyze each participant to determine whether the participant has met contribution criteria (Paragraph [0107] of Walker discloses upon determining that the participants are actually participating, in Step S5 the moderator (and/or the system) provides compensation to the participants via the gaming device).
Walker does not explicitly disclose anonymous. Paragraph [0078] of Walker discloses using alias, ID number, avatar or color to represent participants.
However, Shubert discloses this. Paragraph [0028] of Shubert discloses the collected user-provided anonymous data comprises responses to questions resulting from the user's participation in a focus group. The focus group questions are designed so that user answers do not individually identify the user. The user provides the unique identifier associated with the user's instrument to the focus group moderator, and then provides answers to anonymous focus group questions.
Examiner recites the same rationale to combine used for claim 1.
As to Claim 17, Walker-Shubert discloses the apparatus of claim 16, the at least one memory and the computer program code are further configured to cause the apparatus, in response to determine that a participant has met contribution criteria, to authorize payment to the participant (Paragraph [0107] of Walker discloses upon determining that the participants are actually participating, in Step S5 the moderator (and/or the system) provides compensation to the participants via the gaming device).
As to Claim 19, Walker-Shubert discloses the apparatus of claim 16, the at least one memory and the computer program code are further configured to cause the apparatus: to receive an agenda for the anonymous discussion, the agenda comprising a plurality of topics (Paragraph [0107] of Walker discloses a topic for discussion by the focus group is received from a marketer. The topic may include specific questions);
in response to determining that an individual topic has been discussed in the anonymous discussion, to update the agenda to indicate the individual topic has been met (Paragraph [0082] of Walker discloses a questions database 208 may be a list of discussion topics and/or questions that the focus group moderator may wish to present to participants. A questions database 208 may include question and answer tracking information); and
to provide the moderator with the updated agenda during the anonymous discussion (Paragraph [0082] of Walker discloses Based upon participant's comments, the questions may be altered and new questions may be added).
As to Claim 20, Walker-Shubert discloses the apparatus of claim 16, wherein the contribution analysis indicating the participation level for the associated participant comprises a word count from discussion contributions by the associated participant (Paragraph [0092] of Walker discloses then $2 for each comment made. Paragraph [0137] of Walker discloses a participant may be compensated when, for example, the participant has agreed to join the focus group; the participant has joined the focus group; the participant has completed the focus group; the participant has participated by making comments in the focus group; the participant has been in the focus group for a set period of time; other focus group participants have voted that the participant should receive compensation; other focus group participants have agreed with the comments of the individual participant; other participants make comments based upon the comments of the individual participant; the participant has contributed good ideas; the participant has contributed original ideas; the participant has contributed truthfully and/or thoughtfully; the participant has brought the focus group through a road block in the discussion; and/or the participant has built upon a previously made comment).
Claims 3, 9, 13, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Walker-Shubert and further in view of US Pub. No. 2019/0297120 to Nallaperumal et al. (hereinafter “Nallaperumal”).
As to Claim 3, Walker-Shubert discloses the method of claim 1, wherein hosting the anonymous discussion comprises, for each participant: randomly generating a pseudo-name for the participant (Paragraph [0078] of Walker discloses display an alternative identifier such as, for example, a location name, an identification number, an alias, an avatar icon, and/or a color code); [providing an authentication code to the participant; and in response to receiving a request from the participant to enter the anonymous discussion having the authentication code], allowing the participant into the anonymous discussion under the pseudo-name (Paragraph [0078] of Walker discloses display an alternative identifier such as, for example, a location name, an identification number, an alias, an avatar icon, and/or a color code).
Walker-Shubert does not explicitly disclose providing an authentication code to the participant; and in response to receiving a request from the participant to enter the anonymous discussion having the authentication code.
However, Nallaperumal discloses this. Paragraph [0002] of Nallaperumal discloses a method and system for providing an anonymous chat method and system with machine-learning capabilities. Paragraph [0034] of Nallaperumal discloses an authentication code can be sent to a guest's mobile electronic device. Authorize the guest to participate in the service. Paragraph [0035] of Nallaperumal discloses once a guest has been authenticated once, the guest can remain authenticated for a period of time. The guest would be able to use chat feature.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention to combine the communication system as disclosed by Walker, with using a code to join as disclosed by Nallaperumal. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine to apply a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results. Walker and Nallaperumal are directed toward communication systems and as such it would be obvious to use the techniques of one in the other. Such a combination would improve system security.
As to Claim 9, Walker-Shubert discloses the method of claim 1, wherein hosting the anonymous discussion comprises: receiving, at a first participant device, a text speech contribution from a second participant (Paragraph [0104] of Walker discloses participants and/or moderators may enter comments directly onto the system of the present invention via a text); [converting the text speech contribution to speech using text-to-speech processing; and outputting of the speech on the first participant device].
Walker-Shubert does not explicitly disclose converting the text speech contribution to speech using text-to-speech processing; and outputting of the speech on the first participant device.
However, Nallaperumal discloses this. Paragraph [0043] of Nallaperumal discloses can be sent to the guest in a text format. In some embodiments, the response can be read aloud to the guest. It could use speech synthesis technology to artificially produce human speech.
Examiner recites the same rationale to combine used for claim 3.
As to Claim 13, Walker-Shubert discloses the computer readable medium of claim 11, wherein hosting the anonymous discussion comprises, for each participant: randomly generating a pseudo-name for the participant (Paragraph [0078] of Walker discloses display an alternative identifier such as, for example, a location name, an identification number, an alias, an avatar icon, and/or a color code); [providing an authentication code to the participant; and in response to receiving a request from the participant to enter the anonymous discussion having the authentication code], allowing the participant into the anonymous discussion under the pseudo-name (Paragraph [0078] of Walker discloses display an alternative identifier such as, for example, a location name, an identification number, an alias, an avatar icon, and/or a color code).
Walker-Shubert does not explicitly disclose providing an authentication code to the participant; and in response to receiving a request from the participant to enter the anonymous discussion having the authentication code.
However, Nallaperumal discloses this. Paragraph [0002] of Nallaperumal discloses a method and system for providing an anonymous chat method and system with machine-learning capabilities. Paragraph [0034] of Nallaperumal discloses an authentication code can be sent to a guest's mobile electronic device. Authorize the guest to participate in the service. Paragraph [0035] of Nallaperumal discloses once a guest has been authenticated once, the guest can remain authenticated for a period of time. The guest would be able to use chat feature.
Examiner recites the same rationale to combine used for claim 3.
As to Claim 18, Walker-Shubert discloses the apparatus of claim 16, the at least one memory and the computer program code are further configured to cause the apparatus, when hosting the anonymous discussion, for each participant: to randomly generate a pseudo-name for the participant (Paragraph [0078] of Walker discloses display an alternative identifier such as, for example, a location name, an identification number, an alias, an avatar icon, and/or a color code); [to provide an authentication code to the participant; and in response to receiving a request from the participant to enter the anonymous discussion having the authentication code], to allow the participant into the anonymous discussion under the pseudo-name (Paragraph [0078] of Walker discloses display an alternative identifier such as, for example, a location name, an identification number, an alias, an avatar icon, and/or a color code).
Walker-Shubert does not explicitly disclose to provide an authentication code to the participant; and in response to receiving a request from the participant to enter the anonymous discussion having the authentication code
However, Nallaperumal discloses this. Paragraph [0002] of Nallaperumal discloses a method and system for providing an anonymous chat method and system with machine-learning capabilities. Paragraph [0034] of Nallaperumal discloses an authentication code can be sent to a guest's mobile electronic device. Authorize the guest to participate in the service. Paragraph [0035] of Nallaperumal discloses once a guest has been authenticated once, the guest can remain authenticated for a period of time. The guest would be able to use chat feature.
Examiner recites the same rationale to combine used for claim 3.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Walker-Shubert and further in view of US Pub. No. 2019/0190731 to Le (hereinafter “Le”).
As to Claim 10, Walker-Shubert discloses the method of claim 9. Walker-Shubert does not explicitly disclose wherein converting the text speech contribution to speech further comprises translating the speech from a first language to a second language.
However, Le discloses this. Paragraph [0015] of Le discloses allows a focus group-style discussion group to be conducted online. It provides multiple interfaces tailored to the specific role of a user. Moreover, the system can auto-generate translations, to accommodate the language capability of a user.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention to combine the focus group system as disclosed by Walker, with translating as disclosed by Le. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine to apply a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results. Walker and Le are directed toward focus group systems and as such it would be obvious to use the techniques of one in the other. Paragraph [0015] of Le discloses allows a focus group-style discussion group to be conducted online.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Kevin S Mai whose telephone number is (571)270-5001. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday 9AM to 5PM.
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, Philip Chea can be reached at 5712723951. 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.
/KEVIN S MAI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2499
Prosecution Insights