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 .
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper content of an abstract of the disclosure.
A patent abstract is a concise statement of the technical disclosure of the patent and should include that which is new in the art to which the invention pertains. The abstract should not refer to purported merits or speculative applications of the invention and should not compare the invention with the prior art.
If the patent is of a basic nature, the entire technical disclosure may be new in the art, and the abstract should be directed to the entire disclosure. If the patent is in the nature of an improvement in an old apparatus, process, product, or composition, the abstract should include the technical disclosure of the improvement. The abstract should also mention by way of example any preferred modifications or alternatives.
Where applicable, the abstract should include the following: (1) if a machine or apparatus, its organization and operation; (2) if an article, its method of making; (3) if a chemical compound, its identity and use; (4) if a mixture, its ingredients; (5) if a process, the steps.
Extensive mechanical and design details of an apparatus should not be included in the abstract. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph within the range of 50 to 150 words in length.
See MPEP § 608.01(b) for guidelines for the preparation of patent abstracts.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because:
The abstract does not convey the gist of the claimed subject matter due to the majority of the description referring to content other than what is currently claimed;
the abstract contains acronyms without providing context within the abstract as to the meaning of the acronyms;
the abstract lacks sufficient antecedent basis for the following terms: “the posted comment” and “received comment”; and
the abstract refers to “there” without any context as to what is being referred to by “there”.
A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
The following title is suggested: “METHOD AND SYSTEM FOR RESTRICTING REFLECTION OF USER ACTIONS”.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-15 are objected to because of the following informalities (emphasis added in some areas to note difference):
Claim 1: “so that each user” should read as “so that each user of the plurality of users”;
Claim 1: “reflected on the computers” should read as “reflected on the plurality of computers”;
Claim 1: “performing a process of restricting reflection of” should read as “performing a process of restricting the reflection of”;
Claim 2: “identification of history of actions” should read as “identification of the history of actions”;
Claim 2: “a situation changes” should read as “the situation changes”;
Claim 2: “the history of actions includes an action to be restricted” should read as “the history of actions includes the action to be restricted”;
Claim 3: “a situation changes” should read as “the situations changes”;
Claim 3: “so as to include an action belonging to the first type, and not to include an action belonging to the second type” should read as “so as to include an action belonging to the first type{{,}} and not to include an action belonging to the second type”;
Claim 4: “the computer operated by the specific user” should read as “the computer operated by the new user” to remain consistent with “a computer operated by the new user” of Claim 2;
Claim 5: “setting a new action to be restricted that is among actions reflected on the plurality of computers, in response to an operation from the specific user” should read as “a new action to be restricted, from among the actions reflected on the plurality of computers, in response to an operation by the specific user”;
Claim 7: “a character corresponding to a user” should read as “a character corresponding to a user of the plurality of users”;
Claim 8: The claim introduces “a comment” in three separate instances. After the initial recitation of “a comment”, each latter reference should read as “the comment”;
If the Applicant intended to recite three separate comments, the Examiner requests providing modifiers preceding each recitation of “comment” to clearly identify this intention.
Claim 8: “restricting reflection of a part of the restriction message in the comment” should read as “restricting reflection of a part of the restriction message contained within the comment”;
Claim 8: “restriction message” and “message to be restricted” are nearly identical terms for different purposes. The terms should be distinguished further from each other;
Claim 10: “The method according to claim 1 further comprising” should read as “The method according to claim 1, further comprising”;
Claim 10: “when the candidate based on the received candidate information” should read as “when the candidate identified by the received candidate information”;
Claim 11: “in response to processing of restricting the reflection of the first action by the step of restricting the reflection of the action to be restricted” should read as “in response to the process{{ing}} of restricting the reflection of the first action in the step of performing the process of restricting reflection of the action to be restricted”;
Claims 12-15: The claims are objected to for similar awkward phrasing and lack of sufficient antecedent basis as detailed above.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. As summarized in the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, examiners must perform a Two-Part Analysis for Judicial Exceptions.
Step 1
In Step 1, it must be determined whether the claimed invention is directed to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. The instant invention encompasses a method (i.e., a process) in claims 1-14 and a system (i.e., a machine) in claim 15. All claims are directed to one of the four statutory categories and meet the requirements of Step 1.
Step 2A
Prong One
The claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The instant invention is broadly directed to “methods and systems” (Specification, [0001]).
Claim 1 encompasses the abstract idea and had substantially similar features as claim 15, which is also encompassed by the dependent claims 2-14.
Claims 1-15 recite the steps for restricting users that are not a part of a specific group of users. The system and method are directed to certain methods of organizing human activity, namely managing interactions between people. The invention as currently claimed prescribes which participants in a group may see a communication or action, according to whether a particular user is present in the group. These limitations, when given their broadest reasonable interpretation, recite a rule-based system for managing the interactions of people. Thus, the steps are directed to certain methods of organizing human activity.
Prong Two
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because mere instruction to implemented on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, and/or generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a technological environment or field is not considered integration into a practical application. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the present claims include no additional elements other than the abstract idea which include a plurality of computers operated by the users. The conventional computers over a generic network as presented are directed to the components of a system that amount to merely field of use type limitations and/or extra solution activity to implement the certain methods of organizing human activity for content moderation.
Step 2B
Step 2B in the analysis requires us to determine whether the claims do significantly more than simply describe that abstract method. Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1297. We must examine the limitations of the claims to determine whether the claims contain an "inventive concept" to "transform" the claimed abstract idea into patent-eligible subject matter. Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2357 (quoting Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1294, 1298). The transformation of an abstract idea into patent-eligible subject matter "requires ‘more than simply stat[ing] the [abstract idea] while adding the words ‘apply it.’’" Id. (quoting Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1294) (alterations in original). "A claim that recites an abstract idea must include ‘additional features’ to ensure ‘that the [claim] is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the [abstract idea].’" Id. (quoting Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1297) (alterations in original). Those "additional features" must be more than "well-understood, routine, conventional activity." Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1298.
The present claims do not include the additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Any potentially technical aspects of the claims are well-known, generic computational components performing conventional functions (e.g., “the user terminal 300 may be a computer with operation input and communication functions, such as a personal computer, a tablet terminal, and a smartphone”, Specification, [0050]). The present claims have been analyzed both individually and in combination and, the instant claims do not provide any improvement of the functioning of the computer or improvement to computer technology or any other technical field. There do not appear to be any meaningful limitations other than those that are well-understood, routine, and conventional in the field. Thus, the present claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claims are not patent eligible.
The claims are generally linked to implement an abstract idea on a plurality of computers over a generic network. When looked at individually and as a whole, the claim limitations are determined to be an abstract idea without "significantly more," and thus not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The claims are generally narrative and indefinite, failing to conform with current U.S. practice. They appear to be a literal translation into English from a foreign document and are replete with grammatical and idiomatic errors. For example, the claims consistently utilize redundant terminology in a manner that prevents the claims from clearly establishing the subject matter which the inventor regards as the invention. The remaining rejections outlined under the section of 35 U.S.C. 112(b) are merely examples of indefinite language within the claims, and the Examiner encourages the Applicant to review the claims to remedy all indefinite language due to the copious amounts of indefinite language present within the claims.
As an example regarding the redundant language found within the claims, the Examiner notes claim 1, which recites, “even when the action to be restricted is received from one of the plurality of computers”. This limitation does not provide any additional limitation to the claims due to the fact that the claims, unless amended to state otherwise, will already be interpreted to include “when the action to be restricted is received from one of the plurality of computers”.
As another example regarding the redundant language found within the claims, the Examiner notes claims 1-5, 8-10, and 11-13 in their recitations of a “process” and “step of”. In the context of claim 1 and the claims depending from claim 1, stating that a limitation is a “process” or a “step of” is redundant due to the fact that the claims are a “method” (i.e., a process); therefore, all limitations citing functional limitations are a “process” or “step of”.
Claim 9 recites, “a specific user”, “a specific relationship”, and “a plurality of users”. Claim 1, from which claim 9 depends, already recites “the specific user”, “the specific relationship”, and “the plurality of users”. It is unclear whether the claim 9 limitations are the same entities as in claim 1, a subset of them, or different ones.
Claim 9 recites, “a user other than a specific user” and later “a first user different from a specific user”, and refers to “a special condition on the user”. It is unclear whether “the user” is the user other than the specific user, the first user, or a further user, and whether the first user is the same as the user other than the specific user.
Claim 9 recites a “special condition” without defining the term, and the term is the only feature that separates the users of claim 9 from any other group. It is unclear whether the Applicant intends to define the term, especially what makes a condition “special” or whether the Applicant intends to refer to any possible condition.
Regarding the use of the phrase, “to be” within the claims of the instant application, the phrase lacks clarity as it is uncertain whether the actions that follow the phrase actually occur or are simply intended to happen.
Regarding claim 7, the claim recites, “a user is placed within a predetermined range in a virtual space”; however, “within a predetermined range” is a relative phrase that requires an object to be “within range of”. The claim does not identify said object; therefore, the elements within the claim are indefinite.
Regarding claim 10, the terms “candidate” and “candidate information” lack clarity. The disclosure of the instant application does not define the terms or provide any information as to allow for an interpretation of the terms. For the purposes of examination, the Examiner assumes the Applicant intended for the term “candidate” to be a type of 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.
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.
Claims 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Snap [US20130185363A1].
Regarding claim 1, Snap discloses:
A method that allows an action received from a plurality of computers operated by a plurality of users who have a specific relationship to be reflected on the computers so that each user is able to recognize the action (Snap, [0040], “A list of instant messages is displayed between the at least two participants, 620”),
the users including a specific user for whom an action to be restricted is configurable (Snap, [0041], “At least one new participant is invited to join the instant messaging session, 640.”),
the action to be restricted being an action whose reflection is restricted (Snap, [0044], “Only a selected at least one instant message that corresponds to the at least one new participant will be displayed. Instant messages that do not correspond to the at least one new participant (e.g., non-selected instant messages from the list) are not displayed to the at least one new participant and thus are hidden from the at least one new participant.”),
the method comprising a step of, in a first situation where the specific user is not included in the plurality of users having the specific relationship, even when the action to be restricted is received from one of the plurality of computers (Snap, [0044], “Only a selected at least one instant message that corresponds to the at least one new participant will be displayed. Instant messages that do not correspond to the at least one new participant (e.g., non-selected instant messages from the list) are not displayed to the at least one new participant and thus are hidden from the at least one new participant.”),
performing a process of reflecting the action to be restricted on the plurality of computers, and when a situation changes from the first situation to a second situation where the specific user is included, and when the action to be restricted is received from one of the plurality of computers, performing a process of restricting reflection of the action to be restricted (Snap, [0044], “Only a selected at least one instant message that corresponds to the at least one new participant will be displayed. Instant messages that do not correspond to the at least one new participant (e.g., non-selected instant messages from the list) are not displayed to the at least one new participant and thus are hidden from the at least one new participant.”).
Regarding claim 2, Snap discloses:
The method according to claim 1, further comprising:
a step of updating a history of actions received from the plurality of computers operated by the plurality of users having the specific relationship (Snap, [0040], “A list of instant messages is displayed between the at least two participants, 620”); and
a step of, when a new user becomes included in the plurality of users having the specific relationship (Snap, [0041], “At least one new participant is invited to join the instant messaging session, 640.”),
outputting history information that enables identification of history of actions updated by the updating step to a computer operated by the new user, wherein when the new user is the specific user and a situation changes from the first situation to the second situation (Snap, [0040], “A list of instant messages is displayed between the at least two participants, 620”), and
when the history of actions includes an action to be restricted,
the updating step enables updating so that the history of actions includes actions other than the action to be restricted (Snap, [0044], “Instant messages that do not correspond to the at least one new participant (e.g., non-selected instant messages from the list) are not displayed to the at least one new participant and thus are hidden from the at least one new participant.”).
Regarding claim 3, Snap discloses:
The method according to claim 2,
wherein the action to be restricted includes an action belonging to a first type and an action belonging to a second type (Snap, [0051], “Sue tags some instant messages with the word “friend” and other instant messages with the word “coworker”.”), and
in the updating step, when the new user is the specific user and a situation changes from the first situation to the second situation, the history of actions is updated so as to include an action belonging to the first type, and not to include an action belonging to the second type (Snap, [0051], “The “coworker” tagged items are displayed to Steve and the “friend” tagged items and displayed to David, 880.”).
Regarding claim 4, Snap discloses:
The method according to claim 2,
wherein when the new user is the specific user and the situation changes from the first situation to the second situation, the outputting step outputs history information that enables identification of the history of actions that has been updated by the updating step to the computer operated by the specific user (Snap, [0006], “the selected at least one instant message is displayed on a monitor used by the at least one new participant.”).
Regarding claim 5, Snap discloses:
The method according to claim 1, further comprising a step of, in the second situation,
setting a new action to be restricted that is among actions reflected on the plurality of computers, in response to an operation from the specific user (Snap, [0041], “After joining the instant messaging session, the at least one new participant is able to see all of the past or prior instant messages exchanged between the at least two participants, 650 (i.e., all the conversation that happened since beginning of that instant messaging session).”).
Regarding claim 6, Snap discloses:
The method according to claim 1,
wherein the specific relationship is a relationship associated with a common group (Snap, [0050], “a tag may correspond to a group or department (e.g., research, accounting, human resources, administration) to which the at least one new participant belongs, 830.”).
Regarding claim 7, Snap discloses:
The method according to claim 1,
wherein the specific relationship is a relationship in which a character corresponding to a user is placed within a predetermined range in a virtual space (Snap, [0042], “A participant in an existing instant messaging system may make the session “closed”, 660.”).
Regarding claim 8, Snap discloses:
The method according to claim 1, wherein the action includes a comment, the method further comprising a step of,
even in the first situation, when a comment received from one of the plurality of computers contains a restriction message that is predetermined as a message whose reflection is restricted, performing a process of restricting reflection of a part of the restriction message in the comment and of reflecting the comment other than the part of the restriction message on the plurality of computers (Snap, [0044], “Instant messages that do not correspond to the at least one new participant (e.g., non-selected instant messages from the list) are not displayed to the at least one new participant and thus are hidden from the at least one new participant.”), and
in the step of performing the process of restricting the reflection of the action to be restricted, when a comment including a message to be restricted set as the action to be restricted is received in the second situation, a process is performed to restrict the reflection of the comment including the message to be restricted (Snap, [0044], “Instant messages that do not correspond to the at least one new participant (e.g., non-selected instant messages from the list) are not displayed to the at least one new participant and thus are hidden from the at least one new participant.”).
Regarding claim 9, Snap discloses:
The method according to claim 1,
wherein a user other than a specific user also is allowed to set an action to be restricted that is an action whose reflection is to be restricted only among a plurality of users who have a specific relationship that satisfies a special condition on the user (Snap, [0047], “At any time during an existing instant messaging session, a participant may decide to show or hide his or her instant messages to current participants using an access control.”), and
only among a plurality of users having a specific relationship that satisfies a special condition on a first user different from a specific user, when an action to be restricted set by the first user is received from any one of the plurality of computers, the method comprises a step of restricting reflection of the action to be restricted (Snap, [0047], “At any time during an existing instant messaging session, a participant may decide to show or hide his or her instant messages to current participants using an access control.”).
Regarding claim 10, Snap discloses:
The method according to claim 1further comprising:
a step of receiving candidate information that enables identification of a candidate for a new action to be restricted in response to an operation from the specific user (Snap, [0034], “the different users registered to the instant messaging system may be stored in user database 406. This user database provides information needed to search for and find other users as well as contact users when they are online.”); and
a step of, when the candidate based on the received candidate information is approved by an operator, setting the candidate as an action to be restricted for the specific user (Snap, [0047], “At any time during an existing instant messaging session, a participant may decide to show or hide his or her instant messages to current participants using an access control.”).
Regarding claim 11, Snap discloses:
The method according to claim 1, wherein the action to be restricted includes:
a first action that informs the user who performed the action that reflection is restricted when the reflection is restricted, and a second action that does not inform the user that reflection is restricted (Snap, [0047], “a checkbox may appear next to each participant, or each participant may otherwise be highlighted or selected in a contact or buddy list displayed in the graphical user interface, thereby allowing an on/off toggle for instant messages per participant.”; Snap, [0042], “Thus, the at least one new participant joining the same instant messaging session will not be able to see any of the conversation that has already happened, but will be able to see conversation from the time of their entry into the instant messaging session going forward.”), and
in response to processing of restricting the reflection of the first action by the step of restricting the reflection of the action to be restricted,
the method comprises a step of making a notification to the computer operated by the user who performed the first action to notify that the reflection of the first action is restricted (Snap, [0047], “a checkbox may appear next to each participant, or each participant may otherwise be highlighted or selected in a contact or buddy list displayed in the graphical user interface, thereby allowing an on/off toggle for instant messages per participant.”).
Regarding claim 12, Snap discloses:
The method according to claim 1,
wherein the plurality of computers, upon receiving an action, reflect the action in a computer that received the action, regardless of whether the action is an action to be restricted, and output action information that identifies the action (Snap, [0047], “a checkbox may appear next to each participant, or each participant may otherwise be highlighted or selected in a contact or buddy list displayed in the graphical user interface, thereby allowing an on/off toggle for instant messages per participant.”), and
in the step of restricting the reflection, when the action based on the action information is not an action to be restricted in the second situation, action reflection information is output to reflect the action in the plurality of computers, while when the action is an action to be restricted, the action reflection information is not output (Snap, [0047], “a checkbox may appear next to each participant, or each participant may otherwise be highlighted or selected in a contact or buddy list displayed in the graphical user interface, thereby allowing an on/off toggle for instant messages per participant.”).
Regarding claim 13, Snap discloses:
The method according to claim 1,
wherein the specific user is defined to belong to one of a plurality of types, for the plurality of types, a common action to be restricted is set in advance for each type (Snap, [0047], “a checkbox may appear next to each participant, or each participant may otherwise be highlighted or selected in a contact or buddy list displayed in the graphical user interface, thereby allowing an on/off toggle for instant messages per participant.”), and
in the step of restricting the reflection, when a plurality of specific users are included in the plurality of users having the specific relationship in the second situation, a process may be performed to restrict reflection based not on an action to be restricted set by each of the plurality of specific users but based on a common action to be restricted set in advance for the types to which the plurality of specific users belong (Snap, [0037], “Contact and control window 506 is presented by instant messaging application 500 to provide the user with a list of user names, as well as other information. Contact and control window 506 also provides an interface to allow a user to set different preferences. For example, the user may set passwords required to access different names used in instant messaging sessions.”).
Regarding claim 14, Snap discloses:
The method according to claim 1, wherein when a specific user is included in the plurality of users having a specific relationship,
the action by the specific user is different from the action that another user different from the specific user is allowed to take (Snap, [0046], “Instant messages manually non-selected, for example marked with an “X”, will not be shared with the at least one new participant when he or she joins the instant messaging session, and therefore will remain hidden.”).
Regarding claim 15, the claim shares similar limitations to claim 1. For citations and/or rationale for the rejection of claim 15, please see the rejection of claim 1 above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ZACHARY JOSEPH POLLOCK whose telephone number is (703)756-5952. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 10:00am-8:00pm ET.
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, XUAN THAI can be reached at (571) 272-7147. 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.
/Z.J.P./Examiner, Art Unit 3715
/XUAN M THAI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3715
