DETAILED ACTION
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 . Claims 16-30 are pending.
Claim Objections
Claim 18-19 and 23-27 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 18 recites “on at least one social media platform,” which has been previously introduced and should read “on the at least one social media platform.”
Claim 19 recites “in the blockchain,” which hasn’t been previously introduced and should read “in a blockchain.”
Claim 23 recites “over a computer network,” which has been previously introduced and should read “over the computer network.”
Claim 24 recites “of the SMSE platform,” which was previously introduced as “at least one social media platform” and should read “of the at least one social media platform.”
Claim 25 recites “to the user device associated with the social media content creator,” which hasn’t been previously introduced and should read “to a user device associated with the social media content creator.”
Claim 26 recites “on a distributed ledger,” which has been previously introduced and should read “on the distributed ledger.”
Claim 27 is objected to by virtue of its dependency.
These are not matters of indefiniteness, since the metes and bounds are discernable.
Still, appropriate correction is required, for purposes of consistency.
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 16-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception without significantly more.
Step 1 (The Statutory Categories): Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter? MPEP 2106.03.
Per Step 1, claim 16 is to a method (i.e., a process), claim 29 to a system (i.e., a machine), and claim 30 to a non-transitory computer readable medium (i.e., a manufacture). Thus, the claims are directed to statutory categories of invention. However, the claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because they are directed to an abstract idea, a judicial exception, without reciting additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The analysis proceeds to Step 2A Prong One.
Step 2A Prong One: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? MPEP 2106.04.
The abstract idea of claims 16, 29, and 30 is (claim 16 being representative):
obtaining at a first time, verified social media profile data, wherein the verified social media profile data is in a standardized format at the first time;
generating a first social media share value by applying a valuation algorithm to the verified social media data profile data;
storing the first social media share value;
obtaining at a second time, updated verified social media profile data, wherein the updated verified social media profile data is in a non-standardized format at the second time;
transforming the updated verified social media profile data from the non-standardized format into the standardized format by applying a transformation algorithm;
generating a second social media share value by applying the valuation algorithm to the transformed updated verified social media data profile data;
storing the second social media share value;
applying an alert threshold to the difference between the first and second social media share value to automatically generate a notification in real time associated with the updated verified social media profile data; and
each user has immediate access to the up to date social media share value in the standardized format for use in making trading decisions.
The abstract idea steps italicized above describe facilitating trading decisions in a social media stock market exchange, i.e., a sales activity, which constitutes a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers commercial activity. This is further supported by [02]-[04] of applicant’s specification as filed. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers commercial interactions, including contracts, legal obligations, advertising, marketing, sales activities or behaviors, and/or business relations, then it falls within the Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity – Commercial or Legal Interactions grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Additionally and alternatively, the abstract idea steps italicized above describe the rules or instructions that pertain to facilitating trading decisions in a social media stock market exchange, which constitutes a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers managing personal behavior relationships, interactions between people. This is further supported by [02]-[04] of applicant’s specification as filed. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers managing personal behavior relationships, interactions between people, including social activities, teaching, and/or following rules or instructions, then it falls within the Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity – Managing Personal Behavior Relationships, Interactions Between People grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? MPEP 2106.04.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements are merely instructions to apply the abstract idea to a computer, as described in MPEP 2106.05(f).
Claim 16 recites the following additional elements: computer implemented; multiple platforms; from [the] at least one social media platform; on a [the] distributed ledger; providing a plurality of users with real-time access to the notification over a computer network; via a social media stock exchange platform.
Claim 29 recites the following additional elements: a computing system; multiple platforms; at least one computing processor; memory comprising instructions that, when executed by the at least one computing processor, enable the computing system to.
Claim 30 recites the following additional elements: a non-transitory computer readable medium comprising instructions that when executed by a processor enable the processor to.
These elements are merely instructions to apply the abstract idea to a computer, per MPEP 2106.05(f). Applicant has only described generic computing elements in their specification, as seen in [078]-[094] of applicant’s specification as filed.
Further, the combination of these elements is nothing more than a generic computing system applied to the tasks of the abstract idea. Because the additional elements are merely instructions to apply the abstract idea to a generic computing system, they do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, when viewed in combination. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Therefore, per Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements, alone and in combination, do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B (The Inventive Concept): Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? MPEP 2106.05.
Step 2B involves evaluating the additional elements to determine whether they amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
The examination process involves carrying over identification of the additional element(s) in the claim from Step 2A Prong Two and carrying over conclusions from Step 2A Prong Two pertaining to MPEP 2106.05(f).
The additional elements and their analysis are therefore carried over: applicant has merely recited elements that facilitate the tasks of the abstract idea, as described in MPEP 2106.05(f).
Further, the combination of these elements is nothing more than a generic computing system applied to the tasks of the abstract idea. When the claim elements above are considered, alone and in combination, they do not amount to significantly more.
Therefore, per Step 2B, the additional elements, alone and in combination, are not significantly more. The claims are not patent eligible.
The analysis takes into consideration all dependent claims as well:
Dependent claims 17-28 further narrow the abstract idea above with additional abstract steps and/or information. This narrowing of the abstract idea does not integrate it into practical application and/or add significantly more.
Some of the dependent claims recite further additional elements, which include:
Claim 18: on at least one social media platform; from a user device associated with the social media content creator.
Claim 19: from an investor device; in the blockchain.
Claim 22: at least one application programming interface (API) request associated with at least one social media platform.
Claim 23: over a computer network.
Claim 24: providing at least one of an email, a short message service (SMS) message, a prompt on a user interface of the SMSE platform, and a prompt on a user device associated with a user.
Claim 25: by transmitting the offering recommendation to the user device associated with the social media content creator.
Claim 26: on a distributed ledger.
Similar to above, these are generic computing elements that are merely facilitating the tasks of the narrowed abstract idea. Whether viewed alone or in combination, this does not integrate the abstract idea into practical and/or add significantly more. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Accordingly, claims 16-30 are rejected under 35 USC § 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 12/01/25 have been fully considered.
Regarding applicant’s remarks concerning the rejections under 35 USC § 101, examiner notes that they are predicated on the amended claims, which necessitated the new grounds of rejection seen above. Still, for the purposes of compact prosecution, examiner will address relevant points.
Applicant’s comparison to Example 42, while well taken, is not persuasive. Examiner contends that applicant’s claimed invention doesn’t reflect a technological solution to a technological problem. Example 42 spells out a technical problem, i.e., “Currently, medical providers must continually monitor a
patient’s medical records for updated information, which is often-times incomplete since records in separate locations are not timely or readily-shared or cannot be consolidated due to format inconsistencies as well as physicians who are unaware that other physicians are also seeing the patient for varying reasons.” The technological solution involves “a network-based patient management method that collects, converts and consolidates patient information from various physicians and health-care providers into a standardized format, stores it in network-based storage devices, and generates messages notifying health care providers or patients whenever that information is updated.”
Example 42 goes beyond converting the information into a different format, highlighting that the “the updated information [is provided by one of the users] in a non-standardized format dependent on the hardware and software platform used by the one of the users.” Such language is not present in applicant’s claim.
Regarding Step 2B, examiner notes that the eligibility analysis did not use the terms “well-understood, routine, or conventional.” At Step 2B, examiner “carried over” the analysis from Step 2A Prong Two, where it was determined that the additional elements, alone and in combination, are merely applied to the tasks of the abstract idea. Per MPEP 2106.05(f), the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into practical application and are not significantly more, whether viewed alone or in combination.
Accordingly, examiner maintains the rejection under 35 USC § 101.
Regarding the previous prior art rejections, applicant’s amendments and clarifying remarks are persuasive. These are withdrawn. Specifically, Agarwal does not anticipate the new claims because it fails to disclose, either expressly or inherently, several core features now required by amended claim 16. Specifically, Agarwal does not teach or suggest: (i) obtaining verified social media profile data in a standardized format at a first time; (ii) subsequently obtaining updated profile data in a non-standardized format and transforming that updated data into the same standardized format using a transformation algorithm; (iii) generating sequential first and second social-media share values by applying a valuation algorithm to these standardized datasets; (iv) storing these computed share values on a distributed ledger; or (v) applying an alert threshold to a difference between the first and second share values to automatically generate a real-time notification. Because Agarwal lacks these essential claim elements, it does not anticipate new claim 16 or any of the claims depending therefrom.
Agarwal is directed to improving a user’s social-media engagement and outreach, not to financial valuation or asset creation. For example, Agarwal describes analyzing social-media interactions to determine how users should respond to messages, how to prioritize comment threads, how to identify potentially meaningful outreach opportunities, and how to improve engagement metrics. Agarwal focuses on identifying trending topics, analyzing what content resonates, ranking interactions, and suggesting actions to expand visibility, all of which relate to social-media influence and communication strategy, not valuation, trading, stock-like instruments, or blockchain-based verification. At no point does Agarwal describe assigning a financial metric, generating a tradeable asset, executing a buy or sell operation, or recording anything on a distributed ledger.
In an updated search, examiner identified the following references, which, while generally relevant to the field of endeavor, stop short of the specificity required by the claim:
US 20150188720, which teaches: A computer-based social media network application providing socially networked friends the ability to create video-based challenges and responses to those challenges. The application allows users to easily edit the videos and apply multiple filters. In order to enhance participation, a score and rank based on participation, performance, and other criteria will be tracked and determined. For opt-in participants, the rank may lead to the user being offered an incentive, such as an offer or share of the company and providing and controlling the application. The application may allow businesses to advertise redeemable deals to social media users based on factors, such as geographic location of the business and social media networking users and participation of the social media networking users within the application. Deals allow businesses to monetize the application without intrusive ads. The application may also provide links to social media networking users to other web pages.
US 20170124562, which teaches: A system and method to select, secure, and monetize shared digital content by authenticating peers across digital networks and platforms, and independently controlling and monetizing access to said shared digital content with others across the same platforms from their mobile devices. Authors may privately control and authorize user mobile access to shared digital content according to device, location, behavior, time and knowledge authentication contexts and independently secure and monetize said content with one or more of those peers in real-time across any messaging or communication network, either by value or by reference. Recipients may perform required authentication and may execute required P2P payments to sender to gain access to said shared digital content on their mobile device.
US 20200151815, which teaches: A hybrid trading and social media platform enables users to execute trades in a collaborative manner, benefiting from the collective knowledge of the platform community. To this end, leader-follower relationships are established in a dynamic manner among the platform users and a directed graph is created and maintained in real time to detect inconsistent relationships that may result in unintended or undesired trades. Users can exchange trading ideas and/or actual trades, and comments and feedback on such ideas/trades. One or more followers are provided with performance and/or social metrics of the leader(s) allowing the followers to make informed decisions about the relationships.
Still, these references, alone and in combination, do not does not teach or suggest: (i) obtaining verified social media profile data in a standardized format at a first time; (ii) subsequently obtaining updated profile data in a non-standardized format and transforming that updated data into the same standardized format using a transformation algorithm; (iii) generating sequential first and second social-media share values by applying a valuation algorithm to these standardized datasets; (iv) storing these computed share values on a distributed ledger; or (v) applying an alert threshold to a difference between the first and second share values to automatically generate a real-time notification. Because Agarwal lacks these essential claim elements, it does not anticipate new claim 16 or any of the claims depending therefrom.
Accordingly, the prior art rejections are withdrawn.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: See citations above. Also see:
“The Creator Economy: Managing Ecosystem Supply, Revenue Sharing, and Platform Design” (NPL attached), which teaches: Many digital platforms give users a bundle of goods sourced from numerous creators, generate revenue through consumption of these goods, and motivate creators by sharing of revenue. This paper studies the platform’s design choices and creators’ participation and supply decisions when users’ (viewers’) consumption of goods (content) is financed by third-party advertisers. The model specifies the platform’s scale: number of creators and content supplied and magnitudes of viewers, advertisers, and revenues. I examine how the distribution of creator capabilities affects market concentration among creators and how it can be influenced by platform design. Tools for ad management and analytics are more impactful when the platform has sufficient content and viewers but has low ad demand. Conversely, reducing viewers’ distaste for ads through better matching and timing—which can create win–win–win effects throughout the ecosystem—is important when the platform has strong demand from advertisers. Platform infrastructure improvements that motivate creators to supply more content (e.g., development toolkits) must be chosen carefully to avoid creating higher concentration among a few powerful creators. Investments in first-party content are most consequential when the platform scale is small and when it has greater urgency to attract more viewers. I show that revenue sharing is (only partly) a tug of war between the platform and creators because a moderate sharing formula strengthens the overall ecosystem and profits of all participants. However, revenue-sharing tensions indicate a need to extend the one-rate-for-all creators approach with richer revenue-sharing arrangements that can better accommodate heterogeneity among creators.
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 JOHN SAMUEL WASAFF whose telephone number is (571)270-5091. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday 8:00 am to 6:00 pm.
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.
JOHN SAMUEL WASAFF
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3629
/JOHN S. WASAFF/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3629
Prosecution Insights