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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the communication filed on 07/07/2026.
Claims 21, 28, 35 have been amended.
Claims 1-20, 29, 36 have been canceled.
Claims 21,23-28,30-35,37-40 are currently pending and have been examined.
Response to Applicant’s Arguments
Applicant’s amendments and arguments filed on 07/07/2026 have been fully considered and discussed in the next section. Applicant is reminded that the claims must be given its broadest, reasonable interpretation.
With regard to “non-statutory obviousness-type double patenting rejection”, Applicant has acknowledged the Double Patenting rejection and stated that Applicant will take the appropriate action if co-pending application 16/152,000 issues as a patent before the instant application. However, the non-statutory obviousness-type double patenting rejection will be maintained in the Office Action until such time as the conflicting claims are amended or terminal disclaimer is filed or abandoned of the application.
With regard to claims 21,23-28,30-35,37-40 rejection under 35 USC § 101:
Step 2A, Prong Two
Applicant argues that “ the claims do not merely instruct a generic computer to apply an advertising concept. They recite a particular ordered combination in which third-party audience data updates stored persona/profile data, NLP-derived results and engagement metadata are used to determine whether threshold conditions are satisfied, and the system suppresses network presentation unless the claimed condition is met. These limitations impose meaningful limits on the alleged abstract idea and improve the efficiency and accuracy of targeted advertising by preventing advertisement presentation unless the claimed data-driven gating condition is satisfied. Accordingly, the claims integrate any alleged abstract idea into a practical application under Step 2A, Prong Two ( page 4/6)”.
Examiner disagrees. Since the recitation of “third-party audience data updates stored persona/profile data, NLP-derived results and engagement metadata are used to determine whether threshold conditions are satisfied, and the system suppresses network presentation unless the claimed condition is met” are part of the abstract idea itself, they are not capable of transforming the abstract idea into a practical application under Step 2a, Prong 2 and not capable of being considered "significantly more" under Step 2b.
Only technological improvements rooted in the "additional elements" of a claim are capable of transforming an abstract idea into a practical application under Step 2a, Prong 2, and only "additional elements" are capable of being considered "significantly more" under Step 2b.
Additional elements are those elements outside of the identified abstract idea itself. In the instant case the only additional elements are “ “computer, network and gating mechanism”, as evidenced by applicant specification [28 and 77] , are just general-purpose computers with generic computing components upon which the abstract idea is applied which is insufficient to transform an abstract idea into a practical application under Step 2a, Prong 2 or be considered significantly more under Step 2b.
Thus, any purported technological improvement obtained by practicing the claimed invention is rooted solely in the abstract idea itself which is merely applied using the general-purpose computer, and not rooting in the additional elements upon which the abstract idea is applied.
Improvements of this nature are improvement to an abstract idea which are improvements in ineligible subject matter (SAP v. Investpic decision: Page 2, line 22 through Page 3, line 13 - Even assuming that the algorithms claimed are groundbreaking, innovative or even brilliant, the claims are ineligible because their innovation is an innovation in ineligible subject matter because they are nothing but a series of mathematical algorithms based on selected information and the presentation of the results of those algorithms. Thus, the advance lies entirely in the realm of abstract ideas, with no plausible alleged innovation in the non-abstract application realm. An advance of this nature is ineligible for patenting; and Page 10, lines 18-24 - Even if a process of collecting and analyzing information is limited to particular content, or a particular source, that limitations does not make the collection and analysis other than abstract.). As such, the applicant's arguments are not convincing and the rejections have been maintained. Accordingly, the claim rejection of claims 21, 23-28, 30-35, 37-40 under 35 USC § 101 is maintained.
Under Step 2B
Applicant argues that “ The claims also recite significantly more than the alleged abstract idea when considered individually and as an ordered combination. The Office identifies the additional elements as generic system components, but the present claims do not rely on the mere presence of a network, databases, and an NLP module. Instead, the claims recite specific operational constraints on how those components interact: receipt of new audience data triggers overwriting or amendment of stored audience data and corresponding persona profiles; correlated analytics results update targeting and placements; engagement metadata stored in the content database is used to determine whether a predefined threshold condition is satisfied; and network presentation is suppressed unless the condition is satisfied. This ordered combination is not equivalent to conventional data collection followed by transmission of a result. The claimed system uses stored engagement metadata and weighted threshold conditions as a control mechanism for advertisement delivery. The gating limitation changes system behavior by preventing delivery unless the recited threshold condition is met, rather than merely displaying or communicating the result of an analysis. Viewed as a whole, the claims therefore add meaningful limitations that confine the claimed implementation to a specific, practical system architecture. For at least these reasons, claims 21, 28, and 35 are patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101. The dependent claims are eligible for at least the same reasons because they depend from and further limit eligible independent claims. Applicant respectfully requests withdrawal of the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101 (page 5/6)”.
Examiner disagrees. Since the steps of “receipt of new audience data triggers overwriting or amendment of stored audience data and corresponding persona profiles; correlated analytics results update targeting and placements; engagement metadata stored in the content database is used to determine whether a predefined threshold condition is satisfied; and network presentation is suppressed unless the condition is satisfied” are part of the abstract idea itself, they are not capable of transforming the abstract idea into a practical application under Step 2a, Prong 2 and not capable of being considered "significantly more" under Step 2b. Only technological improvements rooted in the "additional elements" of a claim are capable of transforming an abstract idea into a practical application under Step 2a, Prong 2, and only "additional elements" are capable of being considered "significantly more" under Step 2b.
Additional elements are those elements outside of the identified abstract idea itself. In the instant case the only additional elements are “ a network, databases, and an NLP module”, which are just general-purpose computers with generic computing components upon which the abstract idea is applied which is insufficient to transform an abstract idea into a practical application under Step 2a, Prong 2 or be considered significantly more under Step 2b. Thus, any purported technological improvement obtained by practicing the claimed invention is rooted solely in the abstract idea itself which is merely applied using the general-purpose computer, and not rooting in the additional elements upon which the abstract idea is applied. Improvements of this nature are improvement to an abstract idea which are improvements in ineligible subject matter (SAP v. Investpic decision: Page 2, line 22 through Page 3, line 13 - Even assuming that the algorithms claimed are groundbreaking, innovative or even brilliant, the claims are ineligible because their innovation is an innovation in ineligible subject matter because they are nothing but a series of mathematical algorithms based on selected information and the presentation of the results of those algorithms. Thus, the advance lies entirely in the realm of abstract ideas, with no plausible alleged innovation in the non-abstract application realm. An advance of this nature is ineligible for patenting; and Page 10, lines 18-24 - Even if a process of collecting and analyzing information is limited to particular content, or a particular source, that limitations does not make the collection and analysis other than abstract.).
Also,Alice decision requires the "additional elements" of the claim which must contribute something "significantly more" than the abstract idea itself that is far from routine and conventional. However, the only "additional elements" in the applicant's claims are a general- purpose computer, and a standard use of NLP database technique. These "additional elements" are merely used as a tool to apply the abstract idea which is insufficient to be considered "significantly more" than the abstract idea. The argued limitations which the applicant asserts are far from routine and conventional are part of the abstract idea itself and not "additional elements" of the claimed invention. Thus, the argued limitations are not capable of being considered "significantly more" under Step 2b. Instead, the argued limitations that the applicant asserts are far from routine and conventional would be, at best, an improvement to the abstract idea which is an improvement in ineligible subject matter.
Furthermore, these "additional elements" are merely used as a tool to apply the abstract idea which is insufficient to be considered "significantly more" than the abstract idea. These additional elements “ a network, databases, and an NLP module” fails to (a) improve another technology or technical field and (b) improve the functioning of the computer itself and (c) applies the abstract idea with or by use of, a particular machine, which is a generic computer performing generic computer functions and are not seen to recite an improvement to another technology or technical field, an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself. The argued limitations which the applicant asserts are far from routine and conventional are part of the abstract idea itself and not "additional elements" of the claimed invention. Thus, the argued limitations are not capable of being considered "significantly more" under Step 2b. Instead, the argued limitations that the applicant asserts are far from routine and conventional would be, at best, an improvement to the abstract idea which is an improvement in ineligible subject matter. Thus, the applicants' arguments are not convincing and the claim rejection of claims 21, 23-28, 30-35, 37-40 under 35 USC § 101 is maintained.
With regard to claims 21,28 and 35 rejection under 112 second paragraph. Applicant amended and or clarified the claim rejection. Therefore , the claim rejection of claims 21,28 and 35 rejection under 112 second paragraph is withdrawn.
Double Patenting Rejection
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 § 2146 et seq. 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).The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 21, 23-28, 30-35, 37-40 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting over claims 1-2,4,6-9 and 21-31 of copending Application No. 16/152,000. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct because they merely recite obvious variants of claims 1-2,4,6-9 and 21-31 of copending Application No. 16/152,000.
Claims 21,23-28,30-35,37-40 does not recite the limitations of extract and generate NLP-based marketing results indicating at least one campaign topic associated with the marketing document and at least one category associated with the campaign, wherein the topics, categories and sub-categories in the NLP-based marketing results are hierarchically arranged and wherein the NLP-based marketing results are translated into different languages and/or converted into equivalent terms using a dictionary related to a specific media, and provide the NLP-based marketing results including the translated or converted results in an NLP database; at least one industry associated with the geographic region is identified from the media content and an advertisement price or an advertisement performance metric associated with the at least one campaign topic indicated in the NLP based marketing results is generated. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention, to incorporate the above limitation into the instant application with the motivation of targeting users more efficiently based on their spoken native language with marketing materials and hence increase marketability of products.
Applicant is required to either cancel the conflicting claims from all but one application or maintain a clear line of demarcation between the applications. See MPEP § 822.
The subject matter claimed in the instant application is fully disclosed in the referenced copending application and would be covered by any patent granted on that copending application since the referenced copending application and the instant application are claiming common subject matter. Furthermore, there is no apparent reason why applicant would be prevented from presenting claims corresponding to those of the instant application in the other copending application.
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 21,23-28,30-35, 37-40 are directed to a system and a method which would be classified under one of the listed statutory classifications (i.e., 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (hereinafter “PEG”) “PEG” Step 1=Yes). However, claims 21,23-28,30-35, 37-40 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) the following abstract idea:
Claim 21, for instance recites the following abstract idea: “ a persona configured to: store of a plurality of profiles of fictional users, based on the plurality of user's content interaction where media content with which users have engaged is identified, where the media content is provided, data analytics is performed on the identified media content, and results from the performance of the data analytics are correlated and assigned to the users, such that the plurality of profiles of fictional users stored in the persona database are created from the identified media content and data analytics results; receive queries for and provide a plurality of fictional user profiles: apply to a marketing document, extract and identify, as a function of analysis of the marketing document, a plurality of fictional user profiles from the persona database of an audience towards whom the marketing document is targeted, and provide the plurality of fictional user profiles identified with the analysis to a database; the database configured to receive and store the plurality of fictional user profiles identified with the analysis and provide retrieval of the plurality of fictional user profiles identified with the analysis; and a content configured to store user content, wherefrom user content stored in the content database with which at least one fictional user profile identified from the analysis of the audience has engaged is identified, an entity that produced the identified user content is identified, and at least one advertisement is placed with the entity, thereby providing a limitation to whom the at least one advertisement is placed, wherein the document processing and management system is configured to receive new audience data from the plurality of third party data source and, in response to receipt of the new audience data, overwrite or otherwise amend stored audience data and corresponding persona profiles and update advertisement targeting and placements based on correlated analytics results; and wherein the document processing and management is further configured to gate delivery of advertisements based on engagement metadata stored in the content database, the engagement metadata comprising performance and interaction metrics indicative of relevance to a selected persona file and to suppress presentation of the advertisements to the selected persona profile unless a predefined threshold condition is satisfied, the predefined threshold condition comprising at least one of: (i) a weighted match score of targeting criteria matched to a selected persona profile meeting or exceeding a threshold, and (ii) one or more engagement metrics stored in the content database meeting respective thresholds and to deliver the responsive to satisfaction of the predefined threshold condition, thereby improving the efficiency and accuracy of targeted advertising over conventional systems”.
The limitations as detailed above, as drafted, falls within the “Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas as it relates to commercial interactions of advertising, marketing, or sales activities or behaviors; business relations, because the merely gather data, analyze the data, determine results based upon the analysis, generate tailored content based on the results, and transmit the tailored content. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea (i.e. “PEG” Revised Step 2A Prong One=Yes).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claim only recites the additional elements of “ system; (a network; devices, data sources, NLP module, database and gate mechanism)”. The additional technical elements above are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e. as a generic processor performing a generic computer function of processing, communicating and displaying) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional technical elements above do not integrate the abstract idea/judicial exception into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. More specifically, the additional elements fail to include (1) improvements to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field (see MPEP 2106.05(a)), (2) applying or using a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition (see Vanda memo), (3) applying the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine (see MPEP 2106.05(b)), (4) effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (see MPEP 2106.05(c)), or (5) applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (see MPEP 2106.05(e) and Vanda memo).
Rather, the limitations merely add the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)), or generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Thus, the claim is “directed to” an abstract idea (i.e. “PEG” Revised Step 2A Prong Two=Yes)
When considering Step 2B of the Alice/Mayo test, the claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claims do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
More specifically, as discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of using “ system; (a network; devices, data sources, NLP module, database)”, to perform the claimed functions amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
“Generic computer implementation” is insufficient to transform a patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention (See Affinity Labs, _F.3d_, 120 U.S.P.Q.2d 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2016), citing Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2352, 2357) and more generally, “simply appending conventional steps specified at a high level of generality” to an abstract idea does not make that idea patentable (See Affinity Labs, _F.3d_, 120 U.S.P.Q.2d 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2016), citing Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1300). Moreover, “the use of generic computer elements like a microprocessor or user interface do not alone transform an otherwise abstract idea into patent-eligible subject matter (See FairWarning, 120 U.S.P.Q.2d. 1293, citing DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1256 (Fed. Cir. 2014)). As such, the additional elements of the claim do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they would be generic computer functions in any computer implementation. Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of the computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide generic computer implementation.
The Examiner notes simply implementing an abstract concept on a computer, without meaningful limitations to that concept, does not transform a patent-ineligible claim into a patent-eligible one (See Accenture, 728 F.3d 1336, 108 U.S.P.Q.2d 1173 (Fed. Cir. 2013), citing Bancorp, 687 F.3d at 1280), limiting the application of an abstract idea to one field of use does not necessarily guard against preempting all uses of the abstract idea (See Accenture, 728 F.3d 1336, 108 U.S.P.Q.2d 1173 (Fed. Cir. 2013), citing Bilski, 130 S. Ct. at 3231), and further the prohibition against patenting an abstract principle “cannot be circumvented by attempting to limit the use of the [principle] to a particular technological environment” (See Accenture, 728 F.3d 1336, 108 U.S.P.Q.2d 1173 (Fed. Cir. 2013), citing Flook, 437 U.S. at 584), and finally merely limiting the field of use of the abstract idea to a particular existing technological environment does not render the claims any less abstract (See Affinity Labs, _F.3d_, 120 U.S.P.Q.2d 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2016), citing Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2358; Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1294; Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 612 (2010); Content Extraction & Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, Nat’l Ass’n, 776 F.3d 1343, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2014); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2014).
Applicant herein only requires a general purpose computers communicating over a general purpose network (as evidenced from paragraphs 28, 77); therefore, there does not appear to be any alteration or modification to the generic activities indicated, and they are also therefore recognized as insignificant activity with respect to eligibility. Finally, the following limitations are considered insignificant extra solution activity as they are directed to merely receiving, storing and/or transmitting data:
store of a plurality of profiles of fictional users ….;
receive queries for and provide a plurality of fictional user profiles to a natural language processing (NLP) module;
the NLP database configured to receive and store the plurality of fictional user profiles identified with the NLP analysis;
a content database configured to store user content, wherefrom user content stored in the content database with which at least one fictional user profile;
Thus, taken individually and in combination, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea) (i.e. “PEG” Step 2B=No).
For the same reason these elements are not sufficient to provide an inventive concept. For these reasons, there is no inventive concept in the claim, and thus the claim is not patent eligible. Same judicial analysis is applied here to independent claims 28 and 35.
The dependent claims 23-27, 30-34, 37-40 appears to merely further limit the abstract idea of Certain methods of organizing Human Activity” as it relates to commercial interactions of advertising, marketing, or sales activities or behaviors; business relations), by adding the additional steps of : by further limiting the database of the content includes metadata associated with the entity ( claims 23,30,37) which is part of the abstract idea; by further limiting the database of the content includes metadata associated with a number of user interactions with the user content ( claims 24,31,38) which is part of the abstract idea; by further limiting a user interactions are associated with a user's interactions with advertisements including cost-per-click and click-through rate associated with each advertisement ( claims 25,32,39) which is part of the abstract idea; by further limiting Social network media accounts from which the user’s interactions are sourced ( claims 26, 33,40) which is part of the abstract idea;wherein the content includes at least a plurality of images, videos, music, podcasts, and articles ( claims 27,34) which is part of the abstract idea, and therefore only further limit the abstract idea (i.e. “PEG” Revised Step 2A Prong One=Yes), does/do not include any new additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, and as such are “directed to” said abstract idea (i.e. “PEG” Step 2A Prong Two=Yes); and do not add significantly more than the idea (i.e. “PEG” Step 2B=No).
Thus, based on the detailed analysis above, claims 21,23-28,30-35, 37-40 are not patent eligible.
Possible Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 21,23-28,30-35, 37-40 would be allowable over the prior art if the applicant were to be able to overcome the 35 USC 101 rejections identified above.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The most relevant prior the examiner has found is:
Brent et al, US Pat No: 11042896 B1 teaches A content influencer scoring system may include influencer computers each associated with a respective content influencer having influencer historical performance data and legacy influencer content associated therewith. A remote server may obtain advertisement campaign data associated with an advertisement campaign and parse the advertisement campaign data for advertisement keywords. The remote server may match content influencers to the advertisement campaign data based on the advertisement keywords and, for each content influencer, generate an advertisement campaign score. The score may be generated by determining whether the content influencer is suitable for the advertisement campaign based upon a term frequency of the advertisement keywords for each document from the legacy influencer content, and frequency of the advertisement keywords across the documents, and when suitable, determining whether the advertisement campaign score based upon the historical performance data to generate the advertisement campaign score.
Smith et al, US Pub No: 2015/0293,997 A1, teaches Methods and techniques may be provided for matching user profiles on distinct social media platforms. A first profile is retrieved from a first social media platform. The first profile is identified by one or more search criteria. Responsive to identifying an instance of the one or more search criteria on a second social media platform, a first probability is determined. A second profile is identified by the one or more search criteria on the second social media platform. The first probability predicts whether the second profile is associated with an entity associated with the first profile. The determining the first probability further comprises comparing an attribute of the first profile to an attribute of the second profile. Responsive to determining that the first probability exceeds a threshold, a match indicating that the second profile is associated with an entity associated with the first profile is recorded.
As thus, none of the cited reference discloses the claimed features of the independent claim 21,28,35. Accordingly, the claims subject matter of claims 21,23-28,30-35, 37-40 would be allowable over the prior art, if the applicant would able to overcome the claim rejections under 35 USC 101 above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant' s disclosure.
Neb, US Pub No: 2016/0034974 A1, teaches An advertising system for providing an influencer with an offer to endorse a brand's product or service is also disclosed. The advertising system is selectively in operative communication with one or more influencers and one or more brands. The advertising system comprises of an influencer data repository configured to store the data relating to a plurality of registered influencers and a brand data repository configured to store the data relating to a plurality of brand's offering product or service for endorsement. The advertising system further comprises of an advertising engine, selectively in operative communication with influencer data repository, configured to select an influencer to endorse at least one product or service offered by a brand and formulate an offer for the selected influencer to endorse at least one product or service. The advertising engine is further configured to notify the selected influencer of the offer and provide the selected influencer to endorse the product or service upon a successful approval from the influencer.
Sims et al, US Pub No: 2016/0019579 A1, teaches The invention is a system and method for coordination communication between an advertiser, an influencer and consumers in connection with an influencer campaign which uses social media. The invention also provides a method and system for evaluating the effectiveness of an influencer campaign as well as individual influences who participate in an influencer campaign. The invention gathers and stores social media data which is, in turn, used to evaluate how well and influencer campaign has reached consumers. The invention also measures the reach of individual influencers.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. 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 files within TWO MONTHS from 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Affaf Ahmed whose telephone number is 571-270-1835. The examiner can normally be reached on [ Mon-Thursday 8-6 pm ].
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ilana Spar can be reached at 571-270-7537. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/AFAF OSMAN BILAL AHMED/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3622
