DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
This communication is the final action on the merits in response to the amendments and arguments filed on September 22, 2025. Claims 1, 12, 19, and 21 were amended. Claims 1-6, 8-17, and 19-22 are currently pending and have been examined.
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 .
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 1-6, 8-17, and 19-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1
Claims 1-6, 8-11, and 22 are directed to a machine. Claims 12-17 are directed to a process. Claims 19-21 are directed to an article of manufacture. As such, each claim is directed to a statutory category of invention.
Step 2A Prong 1
The examiner has identified independent Claim 1 as the claim that represents the claimed invention for analysis and is similar to independent Claims 12 and 19.
Independent Claim 1 recites the following abstract ideas: “operations, comprising: receiving social media data associated with a user identity from social media operator entity associated with a social media operator entity; creating, based on the social media data and a learning model representative of a collection of rules, an attributable identity token representing experience data representative of experiences associated with the user identity and location data representative of locations associated with the experiences; generating an experience token based on the experience data; providing, based on the attributable identity token and the experience token, a recommendation to a user associated with the user identity to interact with an attraction and an object at an event by providing the user with directions to a location of the attraction and a location of the object, wherein the recommendation is based on a first wait time of the attraction relative to a second wait time associated with a second attraction, and wherein the recommendation indicates to the user that the user should visit the attraction and then visit the second attraction based on a first popularity of the attraction, a second popularity of the second attraction, a first historical importance of the attraction, and a second historical importance of the second attraction, and wherein the recommendation includes a discounted ticket for visiting the attraction; distributing the attributable identity token to social media accounts associated with a group of user identities comprising the user identity, wherein the group of user identities is associated with the social media operator entity; based on the distributing, performing an emoticon analysis that includes a determination that a first emoticon indicates a positive reaction by a second user identity included in the group of user identities to the experience data; and based on the positive reaction, facilitating a payment to an event entity associated with the experience token.”
The limitations, as drafted, are a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, relates to managing relationships or interactions between people including social activities (i.e., operations, comprising: receiving social media data associated with a user identity from a social media operator entity; creating, based on the social media data and a learning model representative of a collection of rules, an attributable identity token representing experience data representative of experiences associated with the user identity and location data representative of locations associated with the experiences; generating an experience token based on the experience data; providing, based on the attributable identity token and the experience token, a recommendation to a user associated with the user identity to interact with an attraction and an object at an event by providing the user with directions to a location of the attraction and a location of the object, wherein the recommendation is based on a first wait time of the attraction relative to a second wait time associated with a second attraction, and wherein the recommendation indicates to the user that the user should visit the attraction and then visit the second attraction based on a first popularity of the attraction, a second popularity of the second attraction, a first historical importance of the attraction, and a second historical importance of the second attraction, and wherein the recommendation includes a discounted ticket for visiting the attraction; distributing the attributable identity token to social media accounts associated with a group of user identities comprising the user identity, wherein the group of user identities is associated with the social media operator entity; based on the distributing, performing an emoticon analysis that includes a determination that a first emoticon indicates a positive reaction by a second user identity included in the group of user identities to the experience data; and based on the positive reaction, facilitating a payment to an event entity associated with the experience token), but for the recitation of generic computer components (i.e., A system comprising a processor, a memory that stores instructions, and equipment). If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, relates to managing relationships or interactions between people including social activities, but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas.
Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong 2
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Limitations that are not indicative of integration into a practical application include: (1) Adding 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 (MPEP 2106.05(f)), (2) Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05(g)), (3) Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (MPEP 2106.05(h)). In particular, the claim recites the additional elements of a system comprising a processor, a memory that stores instructions, and equipment (in addition to the device of Claim 12 and the non-transitory CRM of Claim 19). The computer hardware is recited at a high level of generality (i.e., generic computers receiving, generating, and outputting data) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Accordingly, these additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, since they do not involve improvements to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field (MPEP 2106.05(a)), they do not apply the abstract idea with, or by use of, a particular machine (MPEP 2106.05(b)), they do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (MPEP 2106.05(c)), and they do not apply or use the abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking its use to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP 2106.05(e)). Therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea without a practical application.
Step 2B
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, they do not add significantly more (also known as an “inventive concept”) to the exception. The additional elements of using computer hardware (a system comprising a processor, a memory that stores instructions, and equipment (in addition to the device of Claim 12 and the non-transitory CRM of Claim 19)) amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. Therefore, the claim is not patent-eligible.
Dependent claim 21 recites “video data, photographic data, audio data,” which are described in paragraph [0040] of the specification. The additional elements are generic technology used to implement the abstract idea, and they do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, nor are they sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea when considered both individually and as an ordered combination.
Dependent claims 2-6, 8-11, 13-17, 20, and 22 do not include any additional elements beyond those identified above. They further define the abstract idea that is present in their respective independent claims and hence are abstract for at least the reasons presented above. As such, they do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, nor are they sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea when considered both individually and as an ordered combination.
Therefore, dependent claims 2-6, 8-11, 13-17, and 20-22 are directed to an abstract idea, and do not include additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, or that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Thus, the aforementioned claims are not patent-eligible.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-2, 5, 8-12, 15-16, 19, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Afshar (US-11979365) in view of Nenkova et al. (US-20220027858), Brannan et al. (US-12373892), and Morris (US-20170186029).
Claim 1 (and Similarly Claims 12 and 19)
Afshar teaches the following limitations:
A system comprising: a processor; and a memory that stores instructions that, when executed by the processor, facilitates performance of operations, comprising: receiving social media data associated with a user identity from social media operator entity equipment associated with a social media operator entity (Col. 3 Lines 13-19 the present technology provides for generating a life story for a user that can be accessed through a content sharing platform, such as a social networking system. For example, the life story for the user can be created based on content items that are shared by the user or are otherwise associated with the user, such as content items in which the user is tagged or from which the user is otherwise recognized; Col. 12 Lines 61-67 The social networking system 630 may be administered, managed, or controlled by an operator. The operator of the social networking system 630 may be a human being, an automated application, or a series of applications for managing content, regulating policies, and collecting usage metrics within the social networking system 630. Any type of operator may be used);
creating, based on the social media data and a learning model representative of a collection of rules, an attributable identity token representing experience data representative of experiences associated with the user identity and location data representative of locations associated with the experiences (Col. 3 Lines 15-30 the life story for the user can be created based on content items that are shared by the user or are otherwise associated with the user, such as content items in which the user is tagged or from which the user is otherwise recognized. Content items to be included in the life story can be curated manually or automatically. Under such approaches, content items that reference important moments in the user's life can be selected for inclusion in the life story. Such content items can reference major life events (e.g., weddings, anniversaries, birthdays, births, etc.), friendships (e.g., formation of a friendship, a friendship anniversary, etc.), life stages (e.g., school years, college years, etc.), and significant events (e.g., birth of a child, a new year's eve celebration, holidays, cultural events, starting a new company, moving to a new city, etc.), to name some examples; Col. 6 Lines 13-17 the generating module 104 can automatically identify content items to be included in a life story for a user without requiring manual selection of content items. The generating module 104 can automatically identify content items based on a number of techniques; Col. 7 Lines 9-23 Other approaches for determining content items to include in a life story are contemplated. For example, in some embodiments, the generating module 104 can train and apply a machine learning model that determines whether to include a content item in a life story based on training data associated with content items. Such training data can include an author of the content item, text associated with the content item, media associated with the content item, and user interactions with the content item (e.g., reactions, comments, reshares, etc.), to name some examples. Such training data also can include labels indicating whether a content item should be included in a life story. In an evaluation phase, the trained machine learning model can output a likelihood that a content item should be included in a life story; Col. 7 Lines 39-43 The generating module 104 can optionally associate content items included in a life story with graphical overlays. A graphical overlay may include text and/or media that describes a context associated with a single content item or a group of related content items; Col. 7 Line 59-Col. 8 Line 3 When determining a graphical overlay for a content item, the generating module 104 can determine a context associated with the content item based on various signals. For example, in some embodiments, the generating module 104 can determine a context associated with the content item based on a geographic location and timestamp associated with the content item. An event calendar that identifies various events (e.g., cultural events, religious events, holidays, etc.) that occur throughout the world can be used to identify an event that corresponds to the geographic location and timestamp associated with the content item);
generating an experience token based on the experience data (Col. 3 Lines 15-30 the life story for the user can be created based on content items that are shared by the user or are otherwise associated with the user, such as content items in which the user is tagged or from which the user is otherwise recognized. Content items to be included in the life story can be curated manually or automatically. Under such approaches, content items that reference important moments in the user's life can be selected for inclusion in the life story. Such content items can reference major life events (e.g., weddings, anniversaries, birthdays, births, etc.), friendships (e.g., formation of a friendship, a friendship anniversary, etc.), life stages (e.g., school years, college years, etc.), and significant events (e.g., birth of a child, a new year's eve celebration, holidays, cultural events, starting a new company, moving to a new city, etc.), to name some examples);
distributing the attributable identity token to social media accounts associated with a group of user identities comprising the user identity, wherein the group of user identities is associated with the social media operator entity (Col. 3 Lines 30-39 When the life story is accessed, each content item included in the life story can be provided for display in chronological order. Thus, the life story can provide a digital biography of the user as told through content items associated with the user. Viewers can access the life story to learn more about the user, for example, based on the chronological presentation of the content items. In some instances, the viewers can engage with the content items through social interactions (e.g., reactions, comments, etc.); Col. 8 Line 56-Col. 9 Line 2 Once a life story for a user is generated, the life story can be made accessible to other users of the content sharing system. For example, an option 304 in an example interface 302 can be provided for presentation through a display of a computing device of a viewer, as illustrated in FIG. 3A. The option 304 can be selected to access the life story. In another example, a profile interface 308 associated with the user can be provided for presentation through the display of the computing device of the viewer, as illustrated in FIG. 3B. The life story may be accessed through an option 310 provided in the profile interface 308 associated with the user. When the life story is accessed, the provisioning module 106 can provide the life story for presentation on a display screen);
based on the distributing, performing an emoticon analysis that includes a determination that a first emoticon indicates a positive reaction by a second user identity included in the group of user identities to the experience data (Col. 6 Lines 51-60 users of the content sharing system can engage with the content item using reactions. As examples, the reactions can include a like option, a heart option, a care option, a funny option, a surprise option, a sad option, and an angry option, to name some examples. In some embodiments, a content item that is associated with a threshold amount (e.g., count, percentage, etc.) of positive reactions (e.g., like reactions, heart reactions, funny reactions, care reactions) can be identified as having a positive sentiment); and
However, Afshar does not explicitly teach the following limitations:
providing, based on the attributable identity token and the experience token, a recommendation to a user associated with the user identity to interact with an attraction and an object at an event by providing the user with directions to a location of the attraction and a location of the object, wherein the recommendation is based on a first wait time of the attraction relative to a second wait time associated with a second attraction, and wherein the recommendation indicates to the user that the user should visit the attraction and then visit the second attraction based on a first popularity of the attraction, a second popularity of the second attraction, a first historical importance of the attraction, and a second historical importance of the second attraction, and wherein the recommendation includes a discounted ticket for visiting the attraction;
based on the positive reaction, facilitating a payment to an event entity associated with the experience token.
Nenkova, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the following limitations:
providing, based on the attributable identity token and the experience token, a recommendation to a user associated with the user identity to interact with an attraction and an object at an event by providing the user with directions to a location of the attraction and a location of the object, wherein the recommendation is based on a first wait time of the attraction relative to a second wait time associated with a second attraction, and wherein the recommendation indicates to the user that the user should visit the attraction and then visit the second attraction based on a first popularity of the attraction, a second popularity of the second attraction, a first historical importance of the attraction, and a second historical importance of the second attraction ([0015] one or more processors may receive user specific data and location data. In some embodiments, the user specific data may include data about the user and the user's preferences regarding the location. In some embodiments, the location data may include current and historical data about the location. As an example, the location data may be data about a theme park, and the user specific data may be data about a visitor to the theme park and her preferences for her visit; [0017] The user specific data may also include geospatial information such as the current location of the user; [0029] the user specific data may include data gathered from one or more social media accounts associated with the user. Social media accounts may include methods of sharing information by the Internet with one or more other users via social media platforms. Social media data may be gathered from posts on social media platforms, comments or responses (such as likes) to posts on social media, or other means of conveying information on social media such as interests expressed, direct messages, inquiries made, answers provided, videos or links posted, individuals or groups followed, etc.; [0030] For example, a picture of someone skydiving shared on social media may indicate that the user has a preference for rides of higher ride intensity or may enjoy rides where a rider experiences free fall or lengthy downhill drops on a roller coaster. As another example, the user may have indicated an interest in a particular movie and based on data indicating an interest in the movie, the user may be directed towards a show or a themed ride based on the characters of the movie; [0018] the location data may include historical data or current data about the theme park. For example, location data may include data about attractions at the location (e.g., rides and shows of the theme park), including, a list of available rides, ride locations, real-time attraction status (e.g., is the ride or show open, closed, only operating at half capacity, under maintenance, closed for a short while), attraction popularity scores, real-time length of all lines (for rides, shows, etc.), estimated wait times in real-time, historical wait times for attractions, variations in historical wait times for attractions based on various factors (e.g., historically wait times for shows are greater (and by how much) in the afternoons immediately after lunch, historical wait times for water rides are greater (and by how much) on days above 90 degrees that are not cloudy, historical wait times for one specific ride increase two-fold if another specific ride is closed for maintenance), ride intensity, physical restrictions for the attractions, and a list of popular attractions as rated by guests; [0020] the one or more processors may utilize a recommendation machine learning algorithm to analyze the user specific data and location data. In some embodiments, the recommendation machine learning algorithm may be any machine learning algorithm capable of utilizing the user specific data, location data, real-time user data (described below), and changes to the user specific and location data to provide a recommendation score and ranking for each of one or more locations or items at the location (e.g., park attractions, rides, shows) for the user; [0021] the one or more processors may generate a visit recommendation using the recommendation machine learning algorithm. In some embodiments, the visit recommendation may comprise one or more recommended locations. For example, the visit recommendations may be a list of theme park attractions, including theme park rides and theme park shows, which are recommended for the user based on the user specific data and location data provided; [0022] the one or more processors may arrange, utilizing a scheduling algorithm, the one or more recommended locations of the visit recommendation into a visit schedule. The scheduling algorithm may be any algorithm, including a machine learning algorithm, which is able to arrange, order, or group the one or more recommendations, based on parameters such as optimization of number of locations, minimization of wait times at locations, minimization of time in route to the locations, or minimization of crowding by multiple users at specific locations; [0023] For example, the visit schedule may list the theme park attractions (e.g., theme park rides and theme park shows) in an order to be visited. As another example, the visit schedule may include groups of attractions to be visited at various times of the day. As another example, the visit schedule may include recommended time slots (e.g., from 2 pm to 4 pm) for visiting one or more attractions; [0027] The graphical user interface may display details about the one or more recommended locations which may inform the user about whether the user would like to visit the locations. These details may include wait times at theme park attractions, recommendations or requirements regarding who the attractions are suitable for (e.g., age and height requirements for amusement park rides), reviews of the attractions gathered from historical data from other users (e.g., through a feedback collection system run internally or from external sources such as websites), the location of the attraction (e.g., how far the visitor must walk to get to the attraction), or other information useful to users. The graphical user interface may provide guidance on the best way (e.g., fastest route, shaded route, or ADA accessible route) to get to the location; [0028] For example, a suggested route and alternative suggested routes may be mapped out on a map feature displayed on the graphical user interface), and
This known technique is applicable to the system of Afshar as they both share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to event-based social media platforms. One of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have recognized that applying the known technique of Nenkova would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system. It would have been recognized that applying the technique of Nenkova to the teachings of Afshar would have yielded predictable results because the level of one of ordinary skill in the art would have known to incorporate such features (i.e., providing a recommendation to a user to visit an attraction and/or event, based on the user’s data, and based on features/attributes of the attraction) into similar systems.
However, Afshar, in combination with Nenkova, does not explicitly teach the following limitations:
wherein the recommendation includes a discounted ticket for visiting the attraction;
based on the positive reaction, facilitating a payment to an event entity associated with the experience token.
Brannan, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the following limitations:
wherein the recommendation includes a discounted ticket for visiting the attraction (Col. 12 Lines 1-8 products may include notifications of nearby events. For example, a user enters, or is within, a geofence defined around the location of an event (e.g., a concert or a food festival), and the product identification message includes a notification to the user regarding the event. The product may further include an offer associated with the event (e.g., a discount on tickets or an offer for a free item if the user attends the event)).
This known technique is applicable to the system of Afshar, in combination with Nenkova, as they both share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to event-based platforms. One of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have recognized that applying the known technique of Brannan would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system. It would have been recognized that applying the technique of Brannan to the teachings of Afshar, in combination with Nenkova, would have yielded predictable results because the level of one of ordinary skill in the art would have known to incorporate such features (i.e., providing a discounted ticket to visit an event / attraction) into similar systems.
However, Afshar, in combination with Nenkova and Brannan, does not explicitly teach the following limitations:
based on the positive reaction, facilitating a payment to an event entity associated with the experience token.
Morris, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the following limitations:
based on the positive reaction, facilitating a payment to an event entity associated with the experience token ([0024] The bid 135 may also define an action which triggers the advertiser system 104 to pay the social networking system 110, also denoted herein as the “bid goal” of the ad... the bid 135 may be predicated on a specific user interaction (i.e., payment is received by the social networking system 110 whenever a user interacts with the ad in a predefined manner). This user interaction may be... providing positive feedback to a page on the social networking system 110, instructing the social networking system 110 to share the ad 131 or a page with other users who are associated with the user (e.g., share the ad with “friends” of the user), or some other interaction; [0077] The bidding panel 520 displays the bid type of the sponsored post 512. The bid type of the sponsored post 522 is based on page “likes.” Thus, the advertiser system 104 pays the social networking system 110 whenever a user to whom the ad is presented “likes” the page associated with the sponsored post 512. A “like” which triggers advertiser system 104 to pay the social networking system 110 may be initiated by a user pressing the “like page” button 517).
This known technique is applicable to the system of Afshar, in combination with Nenkova and Brannan, as they both share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to social media platforms. One of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have recognized that applying the known technique of Morris would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system. It would have been recognized that applying the technique of Morris to the teachings of Afshar, in combination with Nenkova and Brannan, would have yielded predictable results because the level of one of ordinary skill in the art would have known to incorporate such features (i.e., a content provider paying for engagement with their content on social media) into similar systems.
Claim 2
Afshar further teaches the following limitations:
wherein the operations further comprise identifying, based on the social media data, a location of the location data and a time corresponding to the location, and determining, based on the location and the time, that the user associated with the user identity attended the event that took place at the location and the time (Col. 7 Line 55-Col. 8 Line 6 a graphical overlay can be generated for a content item that references a major life event. For example, a content item reflecting people getting married can be presented with a “Wedding Day” graphical overlay. Many variations are possible. When determining a graphical overlay for a content item, the generating module 104 can determine a context associated with the content item based on a geographic location and timestamp associated with the content item. An event calendar that identifies various events (e.g., cultural events, religious events, holidays, etc.) that occur throughout the world can be used to identify an event that corresponds to the geographic location and timestamp associated with the content item. In such embodiments, the generating module 104 can associate the content item with a graphical overlay that corresponds to the identified event (e.g., “Merry Christmas”, “Happy Holi”, “Happy Lunar New Year”, etc.)).
Claim 5
Afshar further teaches the following limitations:
wherein the attributable identity token is a tuple of a collection of tuples (Col. 3 Lines 30-37 When the life story is accessed, each content item included in the life story can be provided for display in chronological order. Thus, the life story can provide a digital biography of the user as told through content items associated with the user. Viewers can access the life story to learn more about the user, for example, based on the chronological presentation of the content items).
Claim 8
Afshar further teaches the following limitations:
wherein the experience data comprises content input via social media accounts associated with the user identity, and wherein the operations further comprise distributing the experience token to the social media accounts associated with the group of user identities (Col. 3 Lines 15-30 the life story for the user can be created based on content items that are shared by the user or are otherwise associated with the user, such as content items in which the user is tagged or from which the user is otherwise recognized. Content items to be included in the life story can be curated manually or automatically. Under such approaches, content items that reference important moments in the user's life can be selected for inclusion in the life story. Such content items can reference major life events (e.g., weddings, anniversaries, birthdays, births, etc.), friendships (e.g., formation of a friendship, a friendship anniversary, etc.), life stages (e.g., school years, college years, etc.), and significant events (e.g., birth of a child, a new year's eve celebration, holidays, cultural events, starting a new company, moving to a new city, etc.), to name some examples; Col. 8 Line 56-Col. 9 Line 2 Once a life story for a user is generated, the life story can be made accessible to other users of the content sharing system. For example, an option 304 in an example interface 302 can be provided for presentation through a display of a computing device of a viewer, as illustrated in FIG. 3A. The option 304 can be selected to access the life story. In another example, a profile interface 308 associated with the user can be provided for presentation through the display of the computing device of the viewer, as illustrated in FIG. 3B. The life story may be accessed through an option 310 provided in the profile interface 308 associated with the user. When the life story is accessed, the provisioning module 106 can provide the life story for presentation on a display screen).
Claim 9
Afshar further teaches the following limitations:
wherein the user identity is a first user identity, and wherein the operations further comprise based on the distributing of the experience token, determining that user input, associated with a third user identity that is a member of the group of user identities, has resulted in the experience token being updated (Col. 9 Lines 2-5 FIG. 3C illustrates an example interface 312 that can be provided for presentation through the display of the computing device of the viewer. The interface 312 provides access to the life story; Col. 9 Lines 12-14 Viewers accessing the life story can interact with individual content items based on various options 320 (e.g., react, comment, etc.)).
Claim 10
Afshar further teaches the following limitations:
wherein the user input associated with the third user identity that has resulted in the experience token being updated comprises a comment input with respect to the experience token associated with the third user identity that results in the comment being associated with the experience token (Col. 9 Lines 2-5 FIG. 3C illustrates an example interface 312 that can be provided for presentation through the display of the computing device of the viewer. The interface 312 provides access to the life story; Col. 9 Lines 12-14 Viewers accessing the life story can interact with individual content items based on various options 320 (e.g., react, comment, etc.)).
Claim 11
Afshar further teaches the following limitations:
wherein the user input associated with the third user identity that has resulted in the experience token being updated comprises an emoticon input with respect to the experience token associated with the third user identity that results in the emoticon input being associated with the experience token (FIG. 3C, Options 320 (reactions); Col. 9 Lines 2-5 FIG. 3C illustrates an example interface 312 that can be provided for presentation through the display of the computing device of the viewer. The interface 312 provides access to the life story; Col. 9 Lines 12-14 Viewers accessing the life story can interact with individual content items based on various options 320 (e.g., react, comment, etc.)).
Claim 15
Afshar further teaches the following limitations:
wherein the experience token represents content input via a social media account associated with the user identity describing an experience that occurred at a second attraction associated with the location data (Col. 7 Line 63-Col. 8 Line 3 the generating module 104 can determine a context associated with the content item based on a geographic location and timestamp associated with the content item. An event calendar that identifies various events (e.g., cultural events, religious events, holidays, etc.) that occur throughout the world can be used to identify an event that corresponds to the geographic location and timestamp associated with the content item).
Claim 16
Afshar further teaches the following limitations:
wherein the user identity is a first user identity, and further comprising distributing, by the device, the experience token to social media accounts respectively associated with user identities comprising at least the first user identity and a third user identity (Col. 8 Line 56-Col. 9 Line 2 Once a life story for a user is generated, the life story can be made accessible to other users of the content sharing system. For example, an option 304 in an example interface 302 can be provided for presentation through a display of a computing device of a viewer, as illustrated in FIG. 3A. The option 304 can be selected to access the life story. In another example, a profile interface 308 associated with the user can be provided for presentation through the display of the computing device of the viewer, as illustrated in FIG. 3B. The life story may be accessed through an option 310 provided in the profile interface 308 associated with the user. When the life story is accessed, the provisioning module 106 can provide the life story for presentation on a display screen).
Claim 21
Afshar further teaches the following limitations:
wherein the experience token includes video data, photographic data, audio data, location data, time data and object data (Col. 5 Lines 5-21 a life story can be created based on content items that are accessible through the content sharing system… As examples, such content items can comprise shared posts that include text (or captions) and/or media (e.g., images, videos, audio, etc.), stories (e.g., user-generated media collections), user-specified life events, links to other content (e.g., other posts, stories, websites, etc.), and updates to a user profile or status (e.g., adding a favorite book at a particular time, check-in at a significant location, marking oneself as being safe from a natural disaster or crisis, etc.); Col. 7 Line 39-Col. 8 Line 36 The generating module 104 can optionally associate content items included in a life story with graphical overlays… When determining a graphical overlay for a content item, the generating module 104 can determine a context associated with the content item based on various signals. For example, in some embodiments, the generating module 104 can determine a context associated with the content item based on a geographic location and timestamp associated with the content item. An event calendar that identifies various events (e.g., cultural events, religious events, holidays, etc.) that occur throughout the world can be used to identify an event that corresponds to the geographic location and timestamp associated with the content item… the generating module 104 can determine a context associated with a content item based on check-in information. For example, a user that posted the content item can specify check-in information that identifies an event or point of interest),
Nenkova further teaches the following limitations:
wherein the recommendation indicates to the user that the user should visit the attraction and then visit the second attraction based on a first scenic perspective of the attraction and a second scenic perspective of the second attraction ([0022] the one or more processors may arrange, utilizing a scheduling algorithm, the one or more recommended locations of the visit recommendation into a visit schedule; [0023] For example, the visit schedule may list the theme park attractions (e.g., theme park rides and theme park shows) in an order to be visited; [0024] the one or more processors may revise the visit recommendation or visit schedule using real-time user data; [0025] based on the real-time user data, the visit schedule may be revised to alter the order or timing of a user's visit to specific locations or types of locations (e.g., based on real-time weather data indicating that a thunderstorm will affect the area of the park for one hour, the visit schedule may be revised to switch the recommended order of the locations and attractions on the visit schedule so that an indoor show is scheduled for the time of the thunderstorm, rather than a large rollercoaster); [0041] the missed recommended item feature may assist the user to go to the next recommended item or to another place instead. For example, directions and/or a map showing the locations of the Ferris wheel or other places (food, quiet place to sunbathe, etc.), and routes to them, may be provided to the user).
This known technique is applicable to the system of Afshar as they both share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to event-based social media platforms. One of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have recognized that applying the known technique of Nenkova would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system. It would have been recognized that applying the technique of Nenkova to the teachings of Afshar would have yielded predictable results because the level of one of ordinary skill in the art would have known to incorporate such features (i.e., providing a recommendation to a user to visit an attraction and/or event, based on features/attributes of the attraction) into similar systems.
Claims 3-4, 6, 13-14, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Afshar (US-11979365) in view of Nenkova et al. (US-20220027858), Brannan et al. (US-12373892), and Morris (US-20170186029), and further in view of Brownhill et al. (US-20190139088).
Claim 3
Afshar, in combination with Nenkova, Brannan, and Morris, does not explicitly teach the following limitations:
wherein the location of the location data comprises a coordinate representing a geographic longitude and a geographic latitude associated with the event.
Brownhill, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the following limitations:
wherein the location of the location data comprises a coordinate representing a geographic longitude and a geographic latitude associated with the event ([0009] the event is associated with a particular time and a particular location, and the geo-location information associated with the user indicates that the user is located at the particular location at the particular time; [0068] the contributor invitation module 204 can identify the set of contributors for an event story by identifying a set of users that are attending an event associated with the event story… the contributor invitation module 204 can determine that a user is attending an event based on geo-location information associated with the user and current time information. For instance, if an event is scheduled to take place at a particular location at a particular time, and it is determined that the user is in the particular location at the particular time, a determination can be made that the user is attending the event. User geo-location information can include GPS information from a user's mobile device, geo-fencing information from the user's mobile device, near field communications, low-power Bluetooth beacon communications, or any other indicator and/or source of user location information).
This known technique is applicable to the system of Afshar, in combination with Nenkova, Brannan, and Morris, as they both share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to the creation of social media event stories from the aggregation of event-related content items. One of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have recognized that applying the known technique of Brownhill would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system. It would have been recognized that applying the technique of Brownhill to the teachings of Afshar, in combination with Nenkova, Brannan, and Morris, would have yielded predictable results because the level of one of ordinary skill in the art would have known to incorporate such features (i.e., location data comprising coordinates representing latitude and longitude associated with an event) into similar systems.
Claim 4
Afshar, in combination with Nenkova, Brannan, and Morris, does not explicitly teach the following limitations:
wherein the location data represents geo-fencing data indicative of boundaries associated with the user identity, and wherein the location of the location data comprises a geo-fence of the geo-fencing data indicative of a boundary associated with the event.
Brownhill, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the following limitations:
wherein the location data represents geo-fencing data indicative of boundaries associated with the user identity, and wherein the location of the location data comprises a geo-fence of the geo-fencing data indicative of a boundary associated with the event ([0009] the event is associated with a particular time and a particular location, and the geo-location information associated with the user indicates that the user is located at the particular location at the particular time; [0068] the contributor invitation module 204 can identify the set of contributors for an event story by identifying a set of users that are attending an event associated with the event story... the contributor invitation module 204 can determine that a user is attending an event based on geo-location information associated with the user and current time information. For instance, if an event is scheduled to take place at a particular location at a particular time, and it is determined that the user is in the particular location at the particular time, a determination can be made that the user is attending the event. User geo-location information can include GPS information from a user's mobile device, geo-fencing information from the user's mobile device, near field communications, low-power Bluetooth beacon communications, or any other indicator and/or source of user location information).
This known technique is applicable to the system of Afshar, in combination with Nenkova, Brannan, and Morris, as they both share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to the creation of social media event stories from the aggregation of event-related content items. One of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have recognized that applying the known technique of Brownhill would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system. It would have been recognized that applying the technique of Brownhill to the teachings of Afshar, in combination with Nenkova, Brannan, and Morris, would have yielded predictable results because the level of one of ordinary skill in the art would have known to incorporate such features (i.e., location data representing geo-fencing data associated with an event and attendees of an event) into similar systems.
Claim 6
Afshar, in combination with Nenkova, Brannan, and Morris, does not explicitly teach the following limitations:
wherein the operations further comprise clustering the attributable identity token in a cluster of attributable identity tokens based on a time stamp value included in the social media data.
Brownhill, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the following limitations:
wherein the operations further comprise clustering the attributable identity token in a cluster of attributable identity tokens based on a time stamp value included in the social media data ([0052] Users that attend and/or participate in the event can be provided with tools to create content associated with the event. User-generated content associated with the event can be aggregated, and at least a subset of the user-generated content can be selected for inclusion in the event story. In this way, each event story can represent an amalgamation of content related to an event that was generated by a plurality of users who participated in and/or attended the event; [0071] The event-related content generation module 206 can be configured to allow a user to capture an event-related content item only when certain capture conditions are satisfied... the capture conditions may include a time condition. For example, a particular event may be scheduled to occur between a start time and an end time. The capture conditions may specify that an event-related content item for that event must be captured between a capture start time and a capture end time. The capture start time may be a pre-determined capture start time and/or may be a certain amount of time prior to the event start time (e.g., six hours before the event start time). Similarly, the capture end time may be pre-determined and/or may be a fixed amount of time after the event end time (e.g., six hours after the event end time); [0077] the event story generation module 306 can be configured to rank a set of event-related content items associated with an event story based on ranking criteria. Event-related content items can be selected for inclusion in and/or ordered within the event story based on the ranking; [0079] the ranking criteria may comprise a time consideration. For example, it may be preferable for an event story to present event-related content items substantially in chronological order such that a user viewing the event story can see how the event progressed chronologically. Accordingly, the event story generation module 306 can present at least some event-related content items in chronological order).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the content story system of Afshar, in combination with Nenkova, Brannan, and Morris, with the limitations taught by Brownhill. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for the benefit of the ability for users attending the same event to collectively create content relating to the event, rather than users individually posting content that only reflects that individual’s experience of the event (Brownhill – [0051]).
Claim 13
Afshar, in combination with Nenkova, Brannan, and Morris, does not explicitly teach the following limitations:
wherein the attributable identity token is an element of a linked list of attributable identity tokens, and wherein at least the location data is at a head end of the element of the linked list of the attributable identity tokens, and the experience data is linked to the head end.
Brownhill, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the following limitations:
wherein the attributable identity token is an element of a linked list of attributable identity tokens, and wherein at least the location data is at a head end of the element of the linked list of the attributable identity tokens, and the experience data is linked to the head end ([0003] systems, methods, and non-transitory computer readable media configured to receive event information for an event. A determination can be made that a first user is attending the event. The first user can be provided with access to an event-related content user interface based on the determining that the first user is attending the event. The first user can use the event-related content item user interface to create and submit one or more event-related content items for potential inclusion in an event story associated with the event; [0005] the event story comprises a plurality of event-related content items created and submitted by a plurality of users determined to be attending the event; [0008] the determining that the first user is attending the event is performed based on geo-location information associated with the user; [0009] the event is associated with a particular time and a particular location, and the geo-location information associated with the user indicates that the user is located at the particular location at the particular time; [0052] Users that attend and/or participate in the event can be provided with tools to create content associated with the event. User-generated content associated with the event can be aggregated, and at least a subset of the user-generated content can be selected for inclusion in the event story. In this way, each event story can represent an amalgamation of content related to an event that was generated by a plurality of users who participated in and/or attended the event).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the content story system of Afshar, in combination with Nenkova, Brannan, and Morris, with the limitations taught by Brownhill. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for the benefit of the ability for users attending the same event to collectively create content relating to the event, rather than users individually posting content that only reflects that individual’s experience of the event (Brownhill – [0051]).
Claim 14
Afshar, in combination with Nenkova, Brannan, and Morris, does not explicitly teach the following limitations:
further comprising, based on geographic coordinate data associated with the location data, classifying, by the device, the attributable identity token and associating the attributable identity token with a collection of attributable identity tokens associated with the geographic coordinate data.
Brownhill, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the following limitations:
further comprising, based on geographic coordinate data associated with the location data, classifying, by the device, the attributable identity token and associating the attributable identity token with a collection of attributable identity tokens associated with the geographic coordinate data ([0003] systems, methods, and non-transitory computer readable media configured to receive event information for an event. A determination can be made that a first user is attending the event. The first user can be provided with access to an event-related content user interface based on the determining that the first user is attending the event. The first user can use the event-related content item user interface to create and submit one or more event-related content items for potential inclusion in an event story associated with the event; [0005] the event story comprises a plurality of event-related content items created and submitted by a plurality of users determined to be attending the event; [0068] the contributor invitation module 204 can identify the set of contributors for an event story by identifying a set of users that are attending an event associated with the event story… the contributor invitation module 204 can determine that a user is attending an event based on geo-location information associated with the user and current time information. For instance, if an event is scheduled to take place at a particular location at a particular time, and it is determined that the user is in the particular location at the particular time, a determination can be made that the user is attending the event. User geo-location information can include GPS information from a user's mobile device, geo-fencing information from the user's mobile device, near field communications, low-power Bluetooth beacon communications, or any other indicator and/or source of user location information).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the content story system of Afshar, in combination with Nenkova, Brannan, and Morris, with the limitations taught by Brownhill. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for the benefit of the ability for users attending the same event to collectively create content relating to the event, rather than users individually posting content that only reflects that individual’s experience of the event (Brownhill – [0051]).
Claim 20
Afshar, in combination with Nenkova, Brannan, and Morris, does not explicitly teach the following limitations:
wherein the operations further comprise, based on received geographic coordinate data associated with the location data and received timing data associated with the geographic coordinate data, classifying the attributable identity token and including the attributable identity token in a collection of attributable identity tokens associated with the geographic coordinate data.
Brownhill, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the following limitations:
wherein the operations further comprise, based on received geographic coordinate data associated with the location data and received timing data associated with the geographic coordinate data, classifying the attributable identity token and including the attributable identity token in a collection of attributable identity tokens associated with the geographic coordinate data ([0003] systems, methods, and non-transitory computer readable media configured to receive event information for an event. A determination can be made that a first user is attending the event. The first user can be provided with access to an event-related content user interface based on the determining that the first user is attending the event. The first user can use the event-related content item user interface to create and submit one or more event-related content items for potential inclusion in an event story associated with the event; [0005] the event story comprises a plurality of event-related content items created and submitted by a plurality of users determined to be attending the event; [0068] the contributor invitation module 204 can identify the set of contributors for an event story by identifying a set of users that are attending an event associated with the event story… the contributor invitation module 204 can determine that a user is attending an event based on geo-location information associated with the user and current time information. For instance, if an event is scheduled to take place at a particular location at a particular time, and it is determined that the user is in the particular location at the particular time, a determination can be made that the user is attending the event. User geo-location information can include GPS information from a user's mobile device, geo-fencing information from the user's mobile device, near field communications, low-power Bluetooth beacon communications, or any other indicator and/or source of user location information).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the content story system of Afshar, in combination with Nenkova, Brannan, and Morris, with the limitations taught by Brownhill. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for the benefit of the ability for users attending the same event to collectively create content relating to the event, rather than users individually posting content that only reflects that individual’s experience of the event (Brownhill – [0051]).
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Afshar (US-11979365) in view of Nenkova et al. (US-20220027858), Brannan et al. (US-12373892), and Morris (US-20170186029), and further in view of Albouyeh et al. (US-20170344225).
Claim 17
Afshar further teaches the following limitations:
further comprising determining, by the device, that emoticon data, representing a graphic exhibiting a positive reaction (Col. 6 Lines 51-60 users of the content sharing system can engage with the content item using reactions. As examples, the reactions can include a like option, a heart option, a care option, a funny option, a surprise option, a sad option, and an angry option, to name some examples. In some embodiments, a content item that is associated with a threshold amount (e.g., count, percentage, etc.) of positive reactions (e.g., like reactions, heart reactions, funny reactions, care reactions) can be identified as having a positive sentiment) and adapting, by the device, a learning rule of the collection of rules applied by the learning model based on the emoticon data (Col. 6 Lines 51-64 users of the content sharing system can engage with the content item using reactions. As examples, the reactions can include a like option, a heart option, a care option, a funny option, a surprise option, a sad option, and an angry option, to name some examples. In some embodiments, a content item that is associated with a threshold amount (e.g., count, percentage, etc.) of positive reactions (e.g., like reactions, heart reactions, funny reactions, care reactions) can be identified as having a positive sentiment. In contrast, a content item that is associated with a threshold amount (e.g., count, percentage, etc.) of negative reactions (e.g., sad reactions, angry reactions) can be identified as having a negative sentiment; Col. 7 Lines 11-19 the generating module 104 can train and apply a machine learning model that determines whether to include a content item in a life story based on training data associated with content items. Such training data can include an author of the content item, text associated with the content item, media associated with the content item, and user interactions with the content item (e.g., reactions, comments, reshares, etc.), to name some examples).
However, Afshar, in combination with Nenkova, Brannan, and Morris, does not explicitly teach the following limitations:
[determining, by the device, that emoticon data, representing a graphic exhibiting a positive reaction to] the experience that occurred at the second attraction, [has been input via a social media account associated with the second user identity]
Albouyeh, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the following limitations:
determining, by the device, that emoticon data, representing a graphic exhibiting a positive reaction to the experience that occurred at the second attraction, has been input via a social media account associated with the third user identity ([0031] Electronic content, such as social media postings, may be published or posted by an originating user. Thereafter, the content may be shared amongst the originating user's contacts through a social media network. Content sharing may continue to propagate out amongst social media contacts throughout one or more social media networks. Data corresponding to the content may include the content of the original posting, user reactions (e.g., “like,” “dislike,” or comments), and the path the content has taken; [0032] For example, if an originating user U posts a message about a music concert that U attended, U's contacts A and B may post reactions to the original message indicating that A also enjoys the band that played at the concert while B posts a reaction stating that B does not like the band. Thereafter, data may be collected including the original message, the responses from A and B, the sharing path the content traversed (i.e., from U to A and from U to B), and the concert event information (i.e., time and location); [0033] If the social media network site has ways for signaling sentiment (i.e., approval or disapproval) without comments, the sentiment may be determined based on the predefined meaning of the sentiment (e.g., data recording a user clicking on a thumbs up symbol corresponding to a user “liking” certain content))
Albouyeh shows that content describing an experience that occurred at an attraction was known in the prior art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Since each individual element and its function are shown in the prior art, albeit shown in separate references, the difference between the claimed subject matter and the prior art rests not on any individual element or function, but in the very combination itself; that is, in the substitution of the content describing an experience that occurred at an attraction of Albouyeh for the general content item of Afshar. Thus, the simple substitution of one known element for another producing a predictable result renders the claim obvious.
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Afshar (US-11979365) in view of Nenkova et al. (US-20220027858), Brannan et al. (US-12373892), and Morris (US-20170186029), and further in view of Huang et al. (US-20140229293).
Claim 22
Afshar, in combination with Nenkova, Brannan, and Morris, does not explicitly teach the following limitations:
wherein the operations further comprise: based on the facilitating of the payment, propagating the experience token to a second group of user identities associated with the social media operator entity.
Huang, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the following limitations:
wherein the operations further comprise: based on the facilitating of the payment, propagating the experience token to a second group of user identities associated with the social media operator entity ([0018] the content items that are eligible for being promoted are organic content items presented to users via one of a number of content delivery channels... Using a content posting module, a user can post or publish some content (e.g., a blog post, a message, a picture, a question, an answer, etc.) to the content feeds of other users. Once posted, the content will appear in the personalized content feeds of any other users who may be connected to, or following, the particular user, or any users who are following a topic to which the posted or published content is related; [0023] promoting a content item may cause the content item to be eligible for presentation to a wider audience of users than the content item would otherwise be eligible for presentation, if not promoted... a content item that has been promoted may become eligible for presentation to users who would otherwise not receive the content; [0026] the price to be paid by a user in exchange for requesting that an item of content be promoted may be derived in a variety of ways; [0028] if content promoted by a particular user is regularly well received by others--meaning, the users who view the promoted content actively engage or interact with the content (e.g., by commenting, re-sharing, liking or voting on the content, etc.)--this may affect (decrease) the price that the particular user is requested to pay in exchange for promoting further content generally, or further content associated with a particular topic... With some embodiments, the price to promote a particular item of content may be dependent upon some metric representing a measure of quality for the item of content being promoted. For instance, the quality of a content item may be determined in any number of ways, including various measures of user engagement with the content item. With some embodiments, for example, a metric representing the quality of a content item may be based on the number of net positive upvotes that the content item has received, the number of user comments on an item of content, the number of times a content item has been re-shared, the number of times a content item has been viewed or followed, and so forth).
This known technique is applicable to the system of Afshar, in combination with Nenkova, Brannan, and Morris, as they both share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to social media platforms. One of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have recognized that applying the known technique of Huang would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system. It would have been recognized that applying the technique of Huang to the teachings of Afshar, in combination with Nenkova, Brannan, and Morris, would have yielded predictable results because the level of one of ordinary skill in the art would have known to incorporate such features (i.e., a content provider paying for reach and engagement with their content on social media) into similar systems.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s Argument Regarding 35 USC 101 Rejection of 1-6, 8-17, and 19-22:
A) in respect of the remarks at page 12 (under Heading A) of the paper filed June 3, 2025, it was pointed out that the Examiner is improperly distilling the claimed subject matter down to its purported gist or thrust, such that the rejection "falls out" from what little of the actual claim language is left after the distillation. The current rejection of June 24, 2025, continues with this same, erroneous approach. Even under the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), the Examiner appreciates that the independent claims are directed to significantly more than "certain methods of organizing human activity", as fairly indicated by the section 102/103 treatment of the claims over the course of the prosecution history (and the various Office Actions associated therewith). It must be kept in mind that the section 102/103 analyses provided in the various Office Actions are the Examiner's analyses (and not the Applicant's). The Examiner's section 102/103 analyses are probative of the Examiner's understanding and comprehension of what the claimed subject matter is directed to. The section 101 treatment afforded to the claims is contradicted by, and inconsistent with, the section 102/103 analyses provided by the Examiner over the course of the prosecution history.
B) in respect of the remarks at pages 12-13 (under Heading B) of the paper filed June 3, 2025, it was pointed out that the Examiner has failed to furnish actual proof/documentation to support the rejection. It is not the Applicant's burden to demonstrate compliance with the statute in the first instance; rather, under the statute, the Examiner must furnish actual proof/documentation to substantiate the rejection in the first instance - e.g., to effectuate a burden-switching as it pertains to the invocation of the exception. In this case, the Examiner has failed to furnish the requisite proof to date. The correspondence between the portion of the quoted claim language and "managing relationship or interactions between people including social activities" in the excerpt from the Office Action at page 4 provided above is not self-evident. Rather, that correspondence is merely an unsubstantiated contention on the part of the Examiner. For at least these reasons, the rejection as provided fails to prove that the so-called "abstract idea" exception is applicable to the subject matter of claim 1. Once again, should the Examiner persist in a rejection it is requested that the Examiner furnish actual proof to demonstrate that the exception applies. Examiner opinions/conclusions are not a substitute for actual proof.
C) in respect of the remarks at pages 13-14 (under Heading C) of the paper filed June 3, 2025, the Examiner was requested to furnish actual evidence/proof as to what is impractical about the features of, e.g., claim 1 and/or why the features of, e.g., claim 1 do not amount to an (integration in an) application. The current Office Action of June 24, 2025, fails to furnish any such proof. This absence of actual proof implies that the Examiner cannot demonstrate that the exception applies. The skilled artisan will appreciate based on a review of the disclosure of the instant application that the features of the independent claims are integrated as part of a practical application.
D) in respect of the remarks at page 16 (under Heading D) of the paper filed June 3, 2025, it was pointed out that the rejection failed to demonstrate that, e.g., claim 1 was directed to "well-understood, routine, or conventional activities". As discussed above in respect of the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103, it is submitted that amended claim 1 is distinguishable from the art that has been cited and applied. In the absence of more, and in the parlance of 35 U.S.C. 102, the Applicant is "entitled to a patent" since the conditions satisfying "unless" in 35 U.S.C. 102 (and in view of 35 U.S.C. 103) have not been demonstrated to have been satisfied. See also 35 U.S.C. 101 (conditioning the obtaining of a patent on "the conditions and requirements of this title"). In this regard, the Examiner is reminded that 35 U.S.C. 101 provides "[w]hoever 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" (emphasis added). Should the Examiner persist in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101, it is requested that the Examiner specifically point out what condition stated in 35 U.S.C. 101 the Applicant has not complied with, particularly in view of the broad mandate 'any' set forth in 35 U.S.C. 101.
E) in respect of the remarks at pages 15-17 (under Heading E) of the paper filed June 3, 2025, the Examiner was requested to identify where in the statute the "abstract idea" exception is contained to ensure/confirm that the statute is not being rewritten outside the legislative process reserved for the people's representatives. In the current Office Action of June 24, 2025, the Examiner fails to furnish a substantive response. See the current Office Action of June 24, 2025, at page 46 (only copying a portion of the remarks that were present under heading E of the paper filed June 3, 2025) and page 49 (alleging that "Examiner has fully responded to every remark/argument set forth by Applicant") (emphasis added). This is not a substantive reply by any reasonable measure - it is merely a conclusion, and an erroneous one. It must be presumed that the Examiner has failed to respond to the request to identify where in the statute the "abstract idea" exception is contained because the Examiner cannot. This is because the statutory text, as written, does not contain an "abstract idea" exception.
The Examiner appears to be arbitrarily selecting decisions of the United States Supreme Court to follow. As discussed at page 17 of the paper filed June 3, 2025, the United States Supreme Court decision in Henry Schein (in view of Bostock) stands for the proposition that Courts lack the power to rewrite statutes to say something that they do not. The Examiner seemingly chooses to ignore this teaching/holding. The Examiner then, in effect, asserts that, e.g., the earlier decided case of Alice is applicable to the instant matter - see, e.g., the current Office Action of June 24, 2025 (page 47: citing MPEP 2106.05 and stating "... the MPEP ... specifically section 2106.05 ... cites many examples of court decisions which provide the basis for interpreting 101 and supporting a 101 rejection").
As discussed above, it is in fact the Examiner's burden to demonstrate the applicability of a rejection with actual proof/evidence. The technology at issue in the cases referred to by the Examiner (e.g., as part of MPEP 2106.05) are inapplicable to the technology of the instant application. For example, as articulated by the Court in Alice, the patents at issue therein "disclose a computer-implemented scheme for mitigating "settlement risk" (i.e., the risk that only one party to a financial transaction will pay what it owes) by using a third-party intermediary." It is not apparent that a scheme for mitigating settlement risk, as addressed by the Court in Alice, bears any meaningful relationship whatsoever to the subject matter of the claims of the instant application. Thus, a citation to Alice (or any of the other cases referenced in MPEP 2106.05) proves nothing on a factual level/basis with respect to the subject matter of claim 1 of the instant application.
On a broader level, an invocation of an "abstract idea" exception is representative of an improper attempt to rewrite 35 U.S.C. 101 to say something that it does not. As between Henry Schein (standing for the proposition that Courts do not have the power to rewrite statutes to contain exceptions) and Alice (alleging an existence of an abstract idea exception to patent subject matter eligibility), the proper result is Henry Schein because the United States system of government is grounded in the Constitution, and the power to promote the progress of the science and useful arts under Article I, Section 8, Clause 8 of the Constitution is reserved for the Congress (and not, e.g., the Courts).
As acknowledged by the United States Supreme Court in Diamond v. Chakrabarty, 447 U.S. 303 (1980) (citing S Rep. No 1979, 82d Cong., 2d Sess., 5 (1952); H.R.Rep. No. 1979, 82d Cong., 2d Sess., 6 (1952)), Congress intended statutory subject matter to "include anything under the sun that is made by man". Thus, and in the absence of a declaration by the United States Supreme Court (or other Court of competent jurisdiction) that the statute is unconstitutional, the only thing that is left for, e.g., the Examiner to do in this case is to apply that policy decision of Congress to the claimed subject matter in the instant case. Stated differently, the "abstract idea" exception is inconsistent with "anything under the sun that is made by man", and thus, the latter must be utilized to preserve Constitutional order. To suggest otherwise: would foundationally transform the United States system of government to something that was never envisioned or intended by the Founders, would fail to uphold the (meaning of the) Constitution as ratified by the States, and would demote a co-equal branch of government (namely, Congress) to a status that is inferior to, e.g., the United States Supreme Court.
Examiner’s Response: Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
A) As stated in the previous office action, a claim rejection under 101 is not the same as a prior art rejection. 35 U.S.C. 101 requires that the claimed invention is directed to patent eligible subject matter, which requires that the claimed invention be to one of the four statutory categories (i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter), and that the claimed invention must not be directed to a judicial exception (i.e., abstract ideas, laws of nature, natural phenomena) unless the claim as a whole includes additional limitations amounting to significantly more than the exception. However, a 35 U.S.C. 103 is a rejection based on the teaching of the claimed invention in prior art, where 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. Further, regarding Applicant’s statement that “The section 101 treatment afforded to the claims is contradicted by, and inconsistent with, the section 102/103 analyses provided by the Examiner over the course of the prosecution history,” it is unclear what Applicant means by the statement, and it is unclear what and how there is a contradiction or inconsistency.
B) As stated in the previous office action, a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 does not require an Examiner to cite specific court cases or decisions to support the rejection. Examiners rely on the MPEP for guidance, and the MPEP was, in fact, relied upon to support the rejection, specifically section 2106.05, which itself cites many examples of court decisions which provide the basis for interpreting 101 and supporting a 101 rejection. Further, the 101 rejection above details exactly which limitations are directed to the abstract idea and exactly what the additional elements are, and details how the additional elements are being used as tools to implement the abstract idea, with support from the MPEP, and an analysis of how the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
C) As previously stated, Examiners rely on the MPEP for guidance, and the MPEP was, in fact, relied upon to support the rejection, specifically section 2106.05, which itself cites many examples of court decisions which provide the basis for interpreting 101 and supporting a 101 rejection. Further, the 101 rejection above details exactly which limitations are directed to the abstract idea and exactly what the additional elements are, and details how the additional elements are being used as tools to implement the abstract idea, with support from the MPEP, and an analysis of how the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
D) As previously stated, the 101 rejection above details how and why the claimed invention does not overcome 101.
E) Examiner is not required to identify where in the statute the abstract idea is contained, and Examiner in no way is rewriting the statute. Rather, Examiner fully considered the statutes in the rejection, and considered the eligibility of the claims based upon the current precedential and legally binding guidance. Examiner followed the guidance of the MPEP Section 2106, which details eligibility; this includes Step 1 (the four categories), Step 2A Prong One (judicial exceptions, which include abstract ideas, which include certain methods of organizing human activity), Step 2A Prong Two (practical application), and Step 2B (inventive concept). This is the Alice/Mayo test, and it is the framework for how Examiners perform 101 analysis. Further, everything in the MPEP is based on supreme court decisions and/or subsequent precedential decisions, which are applicable as evidence for rejection under any of the eligibility steps above.
Regarding the argument relating to Henry Schein, it is unclear how it relates to 35 U.S.C. 101 eligibility, as it has nothing to do with patent prosecution, and the supreme court decision did not discuss anything about 35 U.S.C. 101 eligibility. Thus, it has no bearing. It is also unclear as to why Applicant is arguing against the Examiner citing MPEP 2106.05, specifically citing examples of court decisions, since the MPEP does, in fact, cite court decisions that provide the basis for interpreting 101 and supporting a 101 rejection.
Regarding proof/evidence, to avoid redundancy, Examiner has already explained how evidence was provided, and again, the consideration provides the relevant case law, as the MPEP cites many court decisions under each eligibility step to support lack of eligibility. Refer to MPEP 2106.
Regarding the argument relating to statutory subject matter to "include anything under the sun that is made by man," the claims are directed to an abstract idea; in other words, they are directed to a concept, not a tangible thing made by man. Further, they are not directed to the processor or memory or equipment (i.e., those additional elements are used as mere tools to implement the abstract idea), nor do they provide any technical improvement to any of the processor, memory, or equipment.
Applicant’s Argument Regarding 35 USC 103 Rejections of Claims 1-6, 8-17, and 19-22:
Nenkova at paragraph [0018] describes the historical data in terms of historical wait times for attractions, such as historical wait times for shows, water rides, and the like, based on ride intensity, physical restrictions, and popularity as rated by guests. Nenkova fails to describe the historical data in terms of a historical importance of the attractions, much less in terms of a first historical importance and a second historical importance as recited in the amended independent claims.
Furthermore, in terms of the alleged recommendation, Nenkova fails to teach or suggest that the recommendation includes a discounted ticket for visiting the attraction as recited in the amended independent claims.
Examiner’s Response:
Regarding Nenkova failing to teach that the recommendation includes a discounted ticket for visiting the attraction, Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are moot in light of the new ground of rejection above.
Regarding Nenkova failing to describe the historical data in terms of a historical importance of the attractions, Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Paragraph [0027] of Nenkova recites “The graphical user interface may display details about the one or more recommended locations which may inform the user about whether the user would like to visit the locations. These details may include… reviews of the attractions gathered from historical data from other users (e.g., through a feedback collection system run internally or from external sources such as websites).” The specification of the present invention does not provide a definition for “historical importance,” and only states in paragraph [0059] that the ordering or ranking can be based on factors such as historical importance of the attractions. Based on broadest reasonable interpretation, the reviews of attractions gathered from historical data from other users of Nenkova can be interpreted as historical importance of attractions. Further, paragraphs [0022]-[0023] of Nenkova teach that the processor can arrange the recommended locations of the visit recommendation into a visit schedule, where the visit schedule may list the theme park attractions (e.g., theme park rides and theme park shows) in an order to be visited. Thus, Nenkova does teach the recommendation indicating to the user that the user should visit multiple attractions in a certain order based on historical importance of the attractions.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon, considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure or directed to the state of art, is listed on the enclosed PTO-892.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KARMA EL-CHANTI whose telephone number is (571)272-3404. The examiner can normally be reached T-Sa 10am-6pm 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, Sarah Monfeldt can be reached at (571)270-1833. 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.
/KARMA A EL-CHANTI/Examiner, Art Unit 3629 /SARAH M MONFELDT/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3629
Prosecution Insights