DETAILED ACTION
This action is responsive to continuation filed on April 22nd 2025.
Claims 1~20 are examined.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 12/10/25 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP §§ 706.02(l)(1) - 706.02(l)(3) for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
Claims 1~20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1~20 of U.S Patent 12,309,130. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the U.S Patents mentioned above fully anticipates claims 1~20 of the instant application.
Instant Application 19/186,462
U.S Patent 12,309,130
1. A computer system for accessing a decentralized user controlled social media platform, comprising: one or more processors; and one or more computer-readable media having stored thereon executable instructions that when executed by one or more processors cause the computer system to: receive, from a user computing device, a user authentication token for the decentralized user controlled social media platform; determine that the user authentication token is valid for access to a user account at the decentralized user controlled social media platform; request, through a network connection, content from a plurality of remote servers, wherein each of the plurality of remote servers requires a unique remote server authentication token to access a portion of the content stored at the respective remote server; and communicate, to the user computing device, the content received from the plurality of remote servers.
1. A computer system for accessing a decentralized user controlled social media platform, comprising: one or more processors; and one or more computer-readable media having stored thereon executable instructions that when executed by one or more processors cause the computer system to:
receive, from a user computing device, a user authentication token for the decentralized user controlled social media platform; determine that the user authentication token is valid for access to a user account at the decentralized user controlled social media platform; request, through a network connection, content from a plurality of remote servers, wherein each of the plurality of remote servers requires a unique remote server authentication token to access a portion of the content stored at the respective remote server; communicate, to the user computing device, the content received from the plurality of remote servers;
create a first digital envelope for content, the first digital envelope comprising a digital template for posting the content within a social media post;
store the first digital envelope within a social media platform storage medium;
store the content within a third-party user-controlled cloud storage account; and
in response to receiving a repost indication from another user, create a second digital envelope but not replicating the content.
2. The computer system as recited in claim 1, wherein each of the plurality of remote servers is controlled by a different user of the decentralized user controlled social media platform.
2. The computer system as recited in claim 1, wherein each of the plurality of remote servers is controlled by a different user of the decentralized user controlled social media platform.
3. The computer system as recited in claim 1, wherein each unique remote server authentication token is associated with a different user of the decentralized user controlled social media platform.
3. The computer system as recited in claim 1, wherein each unique remote server authentication token is associated with a different user of the decentralized user controlled social media platform.
4. The computer system as recited in claim 1, wherein the executable instructions include instructions that are executable to configure the computer system to: receive a data file, from the user computing device, for upload into the decentralized user controlled social media platform; identify a particular unique remote server authentication token associated with the user account; access, through a network connection a particular remote server selected from the plurality of remote servers, wherein the particular remote server is accessed using the particular unique remote server authentication token; and upload the data file to the particular remote server.
4. The computer system as recited in claim 1, wherein the executable instructions include instructions that are executable to configure the computer system to: receive a data file, from the user computing device, for upload into the decentralized user controlled social media platform; identify a particular unique remote server authentication token associated with the user account;
access, through a network connection a particular remote server selected from the plurality of remote servers, wherein the particular remote server is accessed using the particular unique remote server authentication token; and
upload the data file to the particular remote server.
5. The computer system as recited in claim 1, wherein the executable instructions include instructions that are executable to configure the computer system to: receive a registration request, the registration request comprising a unique remote server authentication token associated with a remote server storage account; associate a unique remote server authentication token associated with the remote server storage account with a user account within a user specified cloud computer infrastructure; and display a page on a social media platform, the page comprising information from the remote server storage account.
5. The computer system as recited in claim 1, wherein the executable instructions include instructions that are executable to configure the computer system to: receive a registration request, the registration request comprising a unique remote server authentication token associated with a remote server storage account; associate a unique remote server authentication token associated with the remote server storage account with a user account within a user specified cloud computer infrastructure; and display a page on a social media platform, the page comprising information from the remote server storage account.
6. The computer system as recited in claim 5, wherein the unique remote server authentication token may be associated a remote server storage account associated with any one of a set of remote server providers.
6. The computer system as recited in claim 5, wherein the unique remote server authentication token may be associated a remote server storage account associated with any one of a set of remote server providers.
7. The computer system as recited in claim 1, wherein the executable instructions include instructions that are executable to configure the computer system to: create encrypted URLs including content location and credentials; and update the encrypted URLs when a location of the content is changed by a user.
7. The computer system as recited in claim 1, wherein the executable instructions include instructions that are executable to configure the computer system to: create encrypted URLs including content location and credentials; and update the encrypted URLs when a location of the content is changed by a user.
9. The computer system as recited in claim 1, wherein the executable instructions include instructions that are executable to configure the computer system to: receive parameters for a user filter for content screening; execute a computer vision analysis on content within the decentralized user controlled social media platform based upon the parameters; and save an encrypted filter controlled by a user within in a user’s cloud infrastructure, wherein the encrypted filter comprises the parameters and variables associated with the computer vision analysis.
8. The computer system as recited in claim 1, wherein the executable instructions include instructions that are executable to configure the computer system to:
receive parameters for a user filter for content screening; execute a computer vision analysis on content within the decentralized user controlled social media platform based upon the parameters; and
save an encrypted filter controlled by a user within in a user's cloud infrastructure, wherein the encrypted filter comprises the parameters and variables associated with the computer vision analysis.
10. The computer system as recited in claim 1, wherein the executable instructions include instructions that are executable to configure the computer system to: establish a chaperone relationship between a first user and a second user; receive user attributes for the second user; implement a user-specific filter based upon the user attributes; and when the user-specific filter identifies potentially objectionable content, display the potentially objectionable content to the first user.
9. The computer system as recited in claim 1, wherein the executable instructions include instructions that are executable to configure the computer system to:
establish a chaperone relationship between a first user and a second user;
receive user attributes for the second user;
implement a user-specific filter based upon the user attributes; and
when the user-specific filter identifies potentially objectionable content, display the potentially objectionable content to the first user.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1~3, 5, 6, 9~13, 15, 16, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Galebach et al. hereinafter Galebach (U.S 2019/0121813).
Regarding Claim 1,
Galebach taught a computer system for accessing a decentralized user controlled social media platform, comprising: one or more processors; and one or more computer-readable media having stored thereon executable instructions that when executed by one or more processors cause the computer system to:
receive, from a user computing device, a user authentication token for the decentralized user controlled social media platform [¶53, to record the verification, the user signs a transaction for a unique public key on the blockchain, thereby verifying that the user owns the unique public key, as well as any unique text string identifier associated with the public key; ¶68, the social network application can be a blockchain decentralized application (dapp), or a centralized application that calls the blockchain];
determine that the user authentication token is valid for access to a user account at the decentralized user controlled social media platform [¶44, processes enable online verification/attestation services to receive user identification/facts, verify/attest the received user identification/facts, and record the verified identification/attested facts in the blockchain associated to an identifier of the user; ¶53; ¶68];
request, through a network connection, content from a plurality of remote servers, wherein each of the plurality of remote servers requires a unique remote server authentication token to access a portion of the content stored at the respective remote server [¶49, a repository of facts as a service provides an online fact service that, on request, attests to/verifies facts, identification, and the like related to a registered user of the service, and records the attested-to fact, verified identification, and the like in a repository of facts managed by the service; ¶56, the user 224, through communication connection 230 between the user device 222 and the verification server 233, appears (e.g., as an image, video, voice, or the like) to an identification verifier of the online identification service 234; ¶78, the social network application 326 may store the user's account or profile with the defined rules in the social network repository. In this way, a user 224 may define an individual configuration of the social network application 315 defining how other registered users are allowed to view and communicate with the user through the social network application 315]; and
communicate, to the user computing device, the content received from the plurality of remote servers [¶49; ¶56; ¶78].
Regarding Claim 2,
Galebach taught wherein each of the plurality of remote servers is controlled by a different user of the decentralized user controlled social media platform [¶49; ¶56; ¶63; ¶78].
Regarding Claim 3,
Galebach taught wherein each unique remote server authentication token is associated with a different user of the decentralized user controlled social media platform [¶73, the social network application 315 may have any number of owners, such as users or special administrators of the social network application 315, that are given privileges/rights to select third-party service/data providers used by the social network application 315, and verification parameters for filtering data in the social network application 315; ¶49; ¶56; ¶78].
Regarding Claim 5,
Galebach taught wherein the executable instructions include instructions that are executable to configure the computer system to: receive a registration request, the registration request comprising a unique remote server authentication token associated with a remote server storage account [¶48, user interface for log-in to initiate registration of a new or existing social network account of the user. The user selects the particular social network application that the user would like to use to initiate registration of the new/existing account]; associate a unique remote server authentication token associated with the remote server storage account with a user account within a user specified cloud computer infrastructure [¶47~¶49; ¶56; ¶78]; and display a page on a social media platform, the page comprising information from the remote server storage account [¶78].
Regarding Claim 6,
Galebach taught wherein the unique remote server authentication token may be associated a remote server storage account associated with any one of a set of remote server providers [¶47~¶49; ¶56; ¶63; ¶78].
Regarding Claim 9,
Galebach taught wherein the executable instructions include instructions that are executable to configure the computer system to: receive parameters for a user filter for content screening [¶39, Server computers 860 may also be configured to include the social network server 310 of FIGS. 3A and 3B that executes social networking application 315, which enables configuring social network owner preferences for fact attesters, registering users, configuring filter settings, executing operations, and such)]; execute a computer vision analysis on content within the decentralized user controlled social media platform based upon the parameters [¶83, the user's account or profile also includes defined rules for filtering participation of the user in executed operations by other users. The defined rules may be rules defined by the user or rules automatically generated by the social network processor]; and save an encrypted filter controlled by a user within in a user's cloud infrastructure, wherein the encrypted filter comprises the parameters and variables associated with the computer vision analysis [¶38; ¶83; ¶103].
Regarding Claims 10~13, 15, 16, 19, and 20, the claims are similar in scope to claims 1~3, 5, 6, and 9 respectively and therefore, rejected under the same rationale.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 4, 10, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Galebach in view of Gupta et al. hereinafter Gupta (U.S 2021/0173955).
Regarding Claims 4 and 14,
Galebach-Gupta taught wherein the executable instructions include instructions that are executable to configure the computer system to: receive a data file, from the user computing device, for upload into the decentralized user controlled social media platform; identify a particular unique remote server authentication token associated with the user account; access, through a network connection a particular remote server selected from the plurality of remote servers, wherein the particular remote server is accessed using the particular unique remote server authentication token; and upload the data file to the particular remote server [¶117, the user can upload content to a content storage service on the cloud; ¶81, social network may facilitate communication between multiple user devices associated with different users by exchanging content from one device to another via a social media server].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made, to combine, Gupta’s teaching of limitations with the teachings of Galebach, because the combination would allow for the flexibility needed to differentiate content in a dynamic, individualized manner [Gupta: ¶1].
Regarding Claim 10,
Galebach-Gupta taught wherein the executable instructions include instructions that are executable to configure the computer system to: establish a chaperone relationship between a first user and a second user; receive user attributes for the second user; implement a user-specific filter based upon the user attributes; and when the user-specific filter identifies potentially objectionable content, display the potentially objectionable content to the first user [¶44, by determining the criteria for different program types based on information in a user profile, the media guidance application may provide dynamic and individualized parental control features; ¶55, the media guidance application may apply parental controls in response to detecting that the first user is consuming media assets. When applying the parental controls, the media guidance application may compare media assets being consumed by a user to the criteria corresponding to different program types to determine whether or not the media asset corresponds to a particular program type; ¶73].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made, to combine, Gupta’s teaching with Galebach, because the combination may allow parents to track and/or limit the amount of time that a child views media content of a particular type [Gupta: ¶2].
Claims 7 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Galebach in view of Sandholm (U.S 2016/0044071).
Regarding Claims 7 and 17,
Galebach-Sandholm taught wherein the executable instructions include instructions that are executable to configure the computer system to: create encrypted URLs including content location and credentials; and update the encrypted URLs when a location of the content is changed by a user [¶18, two-way sharing of web pages and actions on the web pages by users in a social group; ¶23, if one of the users 100b-d clicks on a button in the encoded image displayed on his/her device, this action will be captured and sent to the user 100a. The action will then be translated into a real action on the web page of the user 100a, i.e., the web page of the user 100a will receive the click event as if the user 100a actually clicked on the button and the web page is updated accordingly. The updated web page is then encoded as an image and the encoded image is sent on a web page to the other users 100b-d so the other users can see the updated image that was a result of the user's 100a action].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made, to combine, Sandholm’s teachings with Galebach, because the combination would let users share and interact with content instantly and securely in real-time in social groups in arbitrary devices [Sandholm: ¶3].
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8 and 18 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HEE SOO KIM whose telephone number is (571)270-3229. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9AM-5PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Nicholas Taylor can be reached on (571) 272-3889. 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.
/HEE SOO KIM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2443
Prosecution Insights