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 .
Status of the Application
This action is in response to the Request for Continued Examination filed September 17, 2025. Claims 1-17, 19 and 21-22 have been amended. Claim 18 is canceled. Claims 1-17, 19 and 21-22 are currently pending and have been examined in this application.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 9/17/2025 has been entered.
Information Disclosure Statement
Acknowledgement is hereby made of receipt of Information Disclosure Statements (IDSs) filed by applicant on 1/15/2025.
However, due to the vast volume of disclosed Information, the documents submitted have only received a cursory review. MPEP 609.04(a) states: “Although a concise explanation of the relevance of the information is not required for English language information, applicants are encouraged to provide a concise explanation of why the English-language information is being submitted and how it is understood to be relevant. Concise explanations (especially those which point out the relevant pages and lines) are helpful to the Office, particularly where documents are lengthy and complex and applicant is aware of a section that is highly relevant to patentability or where a large number of documents are submitted and applicant is aware that one or more are highly relevant to patentability.”
It is desirable to avoid the submission of long lists of documents if it can be avoided. Applicant should eliminate clearly irrelevant and marginally pertinent cumulative information. If a long list is submitted, highlight those documents which have been specifically brought to applicant’s attention and/or are known to be of most significance. See Penn Yan Boats, inc. v. Sea Lark Boats, Inc., 359 F. Supp. G48, 175 USPQ 260 (5.0. Fla. 1972), aff'd, 479 F.2d 1338, 178 USPQ 577 (5th Cir. 1973}, cert. denied, 414 U5. 874 (1974). But cf. Molins PLC v. Textron inc., 43 F.3d 1172, 33 USPQ2d 1825 (Fed. Cir. 1995).
Applicant is hereby requested to provide a representative document(s)/section(s) that are particularly relevant to applicant’s claimed invention which applicant would like for the examiner to consider. Accompanying the representative document(s)/section(s) should be a disclosure addressing why applicant believes each document(s)/section(s) amongst the IDSs filed on 1/15/2025 is important to understanding applicant’s invention.
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 1-17, 19 and 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Specifically, claims 1-17, 19 and 21-22 are directed toward at least one judicial exception without significantly more. In accordance with MPEP 2106, the rationale for this determination is explained below:
Representative claim 1 is directed towards a method, claim 21 is directed towards a system, claim 22 is directed towards a non-transitory medium, which are statutory categories of invention.
Although, claim 1 is directed toward a statutory category of invention, the claim however, is directed towards an abstract idea. The limitations that recite the abstract ideas are: receiving at least one social network record of a social network database, comprising an automated proposal, referral, or recommendation of content based on at least a subjective assessment, or comment about the content from at least one other user linked to the social network record and a user profile of the user; requesting and receiving the content; receiving the communication associated with the at least one social network record or the content; presenting the content and the communication to the user wherein the communication comprises an advertisement; automatically verifying presentation of the communication to a user; receiving a subjective assessment or comment associated with the content from the user; automatically accounting for at least one of the verified presentation to the user of the communication, and an action predicated on the communication, by automatically crediting at least one account associated with the proposal, referral, or recommendation, distinct from any of an account associated with the user, an account associated a proprietor of the content, and an account of a proprietor of the social network, the at least one account being automatically credited contingent on the automatic verification of the presentation of the communication to the user; communicating the subjective assessment or comment from the user associated with the content to the social network database; automatically updating the user profile based on the subjective assessment or comment from the user associated with the content; and automatically linking the subjective assessment or comment from the user associated with the content to the at least one social network record, to thereby update the social network database. These limitations, comprise commercial interactions including, advertising, marketing or sales activities or behavior; business relations; as well as managing personal behavior including social activities, and following rules or instructions. And are thus, directed towards the abstract grouping of Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity in prong one of step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test (see MPEP 2106.04(a) (2) II).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because, when analyzed as a whole under prong two of step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test (see MPEP 2106.04(d)), the additional elements provided by the claim as a whole are recited at a high level of generality and amounts to generally “apply” the abstract by computer components. In particular the claim recites the additional elements of: through a network communication interface; through the network communication interface; through the network communication interface; through a content presentation interface; with a sensor comprising at least one of a biometric sensor and a physiological sensor; with at least one automated processor, of an accounting database; through the communication network interface, which merely uses a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Simply implementing the abstract idea by generic computer components is not a practical application of the abstract idea. The additional elements do not involve improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field (MPEP 2106.05(a)), the claims do not apply the abstract idea with, or by use of, a particular machine (MPEP 2106.05(b)), the claims do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (MPEP 2106.05(c)), and the claims do not apply or use the abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the abstract idea 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 claims do not, for example, purport to improve the functioning of a computer. Nor do they effect an improvement in any other technology or technical field. Accordingly, the additional elements do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements amount to applying the abstract idea on a computer. Viewing these limitations individually, the limitations generically referring to a network communication interface, a content presentation interface, a sensor, memory, processor (claim 21), do not constitute significantly more because they are simply an attempt to limit the abstract idea to a particular technological environment1. Viewing these limitations as a combination, the claims merely instruct the practitioner to implement the abstract idea with a high-level of generality executing basic computer functions. Merely applying an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. Therefore, the limitations of the claim as a whole, when viewed individually and as an ordered combination, do not offer substantially more than the sum of the functions of the elements when each is taken singularly.
An analysis of dependent claims 2-19, likewise, do not recite any limitations that would remedy the deficiencies outlined above as they do not add any elements which integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or constitute significantly more. For instance, claims 2-6, 15 are directed to user social interactions. Claims 7, 9, 12-14, 17-19 directed to commercial interactions utilizing computer components. Claims 8, 10, 16 amount to data gathering extra-solution activity. Claim 11 amounts to extra solution application. Thus, while they may slightly narrow the abstract idea by further describing it, they do not make it less abstract and are rejected accordingly. Further still, claims 21-22 suffer from substantially the same deficiencies as outlined with respect to claim 1 and are also rejected accordingly.
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 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-3, 6-8, 10, 15 and 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gordon (US Patent 11431834) in view of Akbarpour (US Publication 2022/0335509) in further view of Holmdahl (US Publication 2012/0324493).
A. In regards to Claims 1 and 21-22, Gordon discloses a social network method, system and non-transitory medium comprising:
receiving at least one social network record of a social network, comprising an automated proposal, referral, or recommendation of content based on at least a subjective assessment, or comment about the content from at least one other user linked to the social network record and a user profile of the user, through a network communication interface, Gordon [Col. 19 Ln 40-45: various embodiments, social media may include receiving a posting receiving an update, receiving an email and/or instant messaging and/or chat, interacting in some manner with a social media platform; Col. 56 Ln 23-31: in one embodiment, active instructions may include photo sharing with social integration; recommended instructions may include Bob: Network Carrier Management, Mary: Facebook Postings Management, Minty: Browsing History Recommendations; Col. 19 Ln 66 – Col. 20 Ln 2: interacting in some manner with a social media data file and/or receiving a rating (e.g., “like,” etc.); Col. 95 Ln 54-56: service network may track any identifying aspect of the user so that such identifying aspect can be included with a profile-related query; Col. 2 Ln 2-3: user interface component configured to output stimuli and receive inputs];
requesting and receiving the content through the network communication interface; Gordon [Col. 23 Ln 45-53: a request may trigger one or more actions, including, displaying content (e.g., ad, photo, video, text, interactive graphic, etc.), and/or taking any other action in response to the request];
receiving the communication through the network communication interface; Gordon [Col. 6 Ln 18-19: the trigger may include receiving a communication];
presenting the content and the communication to the user through a content presentation interface wherein the communication comprises an advertisement; Gordon [Col. 22 Ln 15-17: providing targeted advertisements and relevant content (e.g., ads, recommended apps, relevant content based on context, etc.); Col. 96 Ln 42-45: the social network system may provide a GUI for configuring such triggers and/or advertisements. In another embodiment, an advertisement system may provide a GUI for configuring such triggers];
receiving a subjective assessment or comment associated with the content from the user; Gordon [Col. 15 Ln 18-22: the user may write one or more comment responses; the mobile device may automatically select more one or more comment to which the response may pertain];
communicating the subjective assessment or comment from the user associated with the content through the communication network interface to the social network database; Gordon [Col. 15 Ln 9-13: user's mobile device may take all such comments, aggregate them into one collection in a central comments repository; Col. 20 Ln 7-9: user may share the update by posting it on other social media sites, sending the update to specific contacts, rate the update, and archiving it to a social database];
and automatically linking the subjective assessment or comment from the user associated with the content to the at least one social network record, to thereby update the social network database; Gordon [Col. 15 Ln 21-25: the mobile device may automatically select one or more comment to which the response may pertain, request approval of the selected applicable comments from the user, and then the mobile device may automatically post the response to the appropriate site; user's mobile device may take comments, aggregate them into one collection in a central comments repository];
Gordon does not specifically disclose, automatically accounting for at least one of the verified presentation to the user of the communication with at least one automated processor, and an action predicated on the communication, by automatically crediting at least one account associated with the proposal, referral, or recommendation, distinct from any of an account associated with the user, an account associated a proprietor of the content, and an account of a proprietor of the social network, the at least one account being automatically credited contingent on the automatic verification of the presentation of the communication to the user. This is disclosed by Akbarpour [0062: to ensure various parties receive payment for purchases made via the shopping cart links in the social networking posts; the system may be configured to determine whether a product has been purchased; when a user selects a product from a collection, information about that product may be inserted into tracking records that are sent to the merchant; when the sale is consummated by the merchant, the information contained in the record is retrieved by the system; the information may include evidence of sale consummation and attribution to the original content provider that provided the referral; information may be specific to the user that provided the link in the social networking post; in this manner, no confusion may arise regarding which user actually provided the referral to the merchant; the system may provide an incentive to users by correctly attributing all products sold and allocating a percentage commission of lower level users to the referring user; crediting the referral to the user may generally include acknowledging that the user's content led to a purchase of a particular item];
it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the invention for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the teachings of Gordon with the teachings from Akbarpour with the motivation to provide a means to monetize current and previous posts to a social networking platform by providing users with an ability to place a shopping cart link in a post, where the link gives others an opportunity to make content within the post shoppable and/or purchase one or more items related to the post by clicking on the shopping cart link. Akbarpour [0028].
Gordon does not specifically disclose, automatically verifying presentation of the communication to a user with a sensor comprising at least one of a biometric sensor and a physiological sensor; this is disclosed by Holmdahl [0013: sensors that may be used to gather data for use in sensing emotional state include, but are not limited to, image sensors, depth sensors, acoustic sensors, and potentially other sensors such as motion and biometric sensors. Such sensors may allow systems to identify individuals, detect and understand human emotional expressions, and provide real-time feedback while a viewer is watching video; 0031: suitable eye tracking and/or face position tracking techniques may be employed (potentially in combination with a depth map of the video viewing environment) to determine a degree to which the viewer's attention is focused on the display device and/or the video item];
automatically updating the user profile based on the subjective assessment or comment from the user associated with the content. This is disclosed by Holmdahl [0033: as the viewer watches more video items, the viewer's viewing interest profile may be altered to reflect changing tastes and interests of the viewer as expressed in the viewer's emotional responses; 0034: the emotional responses may be analyzed in real time].
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the invention for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the teachings of Gordon with the teachings from Holmdahl with the motivation to filter profiles with respect to people in a group of potentially positively correlated viewers, such as members of a requesting viewer's social network. Video items that are deemed interesting to and/or are recommended by members of the requesting viewer's social network may also be more likely to be interesting and relevant to the requesting viewer and therefore help to identify video items the requesting viewer might enjoy seeing. Holmdahl [0043].
B. In regards to Claim 2, Gordon discloses, wherein the social network record comprises a history of user interaction with the content, Gordon [Col. 22 Ln 7-9: a trigger may include user history. In various embodiments, user history may include browsing history];
further comprising automatically debiting the account associated with the user for user interaction with the content. Gordon [Col. 103 Ln 6: payment method may include a credit card, a debit card].
C. In regards to Claim 3, Gordon discloses, further comprising receiving a subjective assessment or comment, wherein the subjective assessment or comment is linked to the social network record, Gordon [Col. 94 Ln 24-25: the social network service functionality may allow users to post blog entries];
Gordon does not specifically disclose, automatically crediting or debiting the account associated with the user for the receipt of the subjective assessment or comment. Akbarpour [0062: the user may receive compensation, an award, a change in status, virtual currency, points, and/or the like for the referral; 0028: monetize current and previous posts to a social networking platform by providing users with an ability to place a shopping cart link in a post]. The motivation being the same as claim 1.
D. In regards to Claim 6, Gordon does not specifically disclose, further comprising automatically crediting at least one of the account associated with the user, the account associated a proprietor of the content, and the account of a proprietor of the social network user for a presentation of the communication to the user. This is disclosed by Akbarpour [0060: provide a user with access to systems and methods that allow the user to discover, collect, aggregate, optimize, and automatically apply any coupons, rewards, gift cards, loyalty programs, and/or the like]. The motivation being the same as claim 1.
E. In regards to Claim 7, Gordon discloses, further comprising verifying a presentation of the communication to the user. Gordon [Col. 87 Ln 50-52: social network information may be utilized to determine targeted advertisements/content].
F. In regards to Claim 8, Gordon discloses, further comprising capturing images of the user with a camera during the presentation of the communication; and verifying presentation of the communication to the user based on the captured images. Gordon [Col. 20 Ln 21-25: a trigger may include a camera and/or gallery. In various embodiments, a camera and/or gallery may include a live camera view, one or more photos (e.g., already taken photos, etc.), a webcam, a camera attached to the mobile device].
G. In regards to Claim 10, Gordon discloses, further comprising receiving content through the network communication interface from a peer-to-peer distributed database. Gordon [Col. 3 Ln 57-61: in the context of the present network architecture, the networks may each take any form including, but not limited to a wide area network (WAN) such as the Internet, peer-to-peer network, etc.].
H. In regards to Claim 15, Gordon discloses, further comprising storing a user profile; and targeting the communication to the user based on the user profile, wherein the user profile is unavailable to the social network. Gordon [Col. 80 Ln 56-61: device may be in communication with a system capable of storing profile information associated with members of a service network; causing presentation of at least one of the advertisements outside of the service network, based on the profile information].
Claims 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gordon (US Patent 11431834) in view of Akbarpour (US Publication 2022/0335509) in further view of Holmdahl (US Publication 2012/0324493) and Aleknavicius (US Publication 2023/0368237).
A. In regards to Claim 4, Gordon does not specifically disclose, further comprising crediting or debiting the account associated with the user for the subjective assessment or comment, based on interaction of other users with the subjective assessment or comment. This is disclosed by Aleknavicius [0042: advertise directly to customers and receive feedback in various forms, wherein the selected recipients are given a reward (e.g. fees or credit)].
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the invention for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the teachings of Gordon with the teachings from Aleknavicius with the motivation to enable individuals to be rewarded for the time and effort devoted by the individual to review information provided by another entity such that the individual is motivated to devote the required time and effort. Aleknavicius [0012].
Claims 5, 11-14, 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gordon (US Patent 11431834) in view of Akbarpour (US Publication 2022/0335509) in further view of Holmdahl (US Publication 2012/0324493) and Burke (US Publication 2021/0042830).
A. In regards to Claim 5, Gordon does not specifically disclose, further comprising crediting the account associated with the proprietor of the social network for the for at least one of the presentation of the communication and the action predicated on the communication. This is disclosed by Burke [0877: system includes an in-application link access to personal computer, mobile and online games include a "Connect to the system crypto API", and enabling users as gamers to use system cryptocurrency inside each game or inside games in the system application using a system cryptocurrency API enabling games to use system crypto currency, including, but not limited to payment for game play, payment for gameplay viewing, payment as exchange within the game, payment as reward within the game, payment as virtual currency within the game, and payment exchange with other players of the game].
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the invention for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the teachings of Gordon with the teachings from Burke with the motivation to enable individuals to be rewarded for the time and effort devoted by the individual to review information provided by another entity such that the individual is motivated to devote the required time and effort. Burke [0012].
B. In regards to Claim 11, Gordon does not specifically disclose, further comprising receiving the at least one social network record from a decentralized social network database. This is disclosed by Burke [0109: a blockchain powered social media network built on a satellite constellation according to some embodiments]. The motivation being the same as claim 5.
C. In regards to Claim 12, Gordon discloses, wherein the communication comprises a commercial advertisement video, and the at least one social network record of the social network, comprising the proposal, referral, or recommendation of content comprises a reference to a social media influencer who references the content; Gordon [Col. 6 Ln 18-19: trigger may include receiving a communication e.g., advertisement,] but does not specifically disclose,
further comprising: receiving a payment from an account associated with a commercial sponsor of the commercial advertisement video; distributing proceeds of the payment to an account of social media influencer being the at least one account associated with the proposal, referral, or recommendation; and further distributing proceeds to an account associated with the user, an account associated a proprietor of the content, and an account of a proprietor of the social network. This is disclosed by Burke [0232: some embodiments, the system can allow users to reward other users with system rewards for posts, enable token holders to use system rewards coins for advertising, and/or enable token holders to use system rewards for PPC advertising, and/or enable token holders to use system rewards to pay for sponsored link, and/or buy banner adverts, and pay to promote their accounts in the system search directory]. The motivation being the same as claim 5.
D. In regards to Claim 13, Gordon does not specifically disclose, further comprising initiating a transaction to authorize presentation of the content to the user through the content presentation interface, wherein the transaction comprises execution of a smart contract on a distributed virtual machine. This is disclosed by Burke [0134: embodiments of the system include a "SoverelgnSky" platform blockchain system that is hosted in space. Some embodiments of the system include smart contracts for system payments of system currency, assets, or coins]. The motivation being the same as claim 5.
E. In regards to Claim 14, Gordon does not specifically disclose, further comprising providing an automated recommender; generating the proposal, referral, or recommendation of content with the automated recommender; and selecting or ranking the content for presentation to the user. This is disclosed by Burke [0178: the system includes a personalized recommendation algorithm that enables users' preferences and increases engagement]. The motivation being the same as claim 5.
F. In regards to Claim 18, Gordon does not specifically disclose, wherein the account is credited contingent on at least one of a presentation to the user of the advertisement, and consummation of a commercial transaction after display of the advertisement. This is disclosed by Burke [0217: some embodiments, the system can enable token holders to invite all the members of UIGs (monthly fee until disconnected). In some embodiments, the system can enable token holders to use system rewards to pay to broadcast television channels within a group chat room. In some embodiments, the system can enable token holders to use system rewards to pay for advertisements within their chat rooms]. The motivation being the same as claim 5.
Claims 9 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gordon (US Patent 11431834) in view of Akbarpour (US Publication 2022/0335509) in further view of Holmdahl (US Publication 2012/0324493) and Isaacson (US Publication 2023/0360109).
A. In regards to Claim 9, Gordon does not specifically disclose, further comprising accounting for a transaction in a distributed ledger system. This is disclosed by Isaacson [
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the invention for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the teachings of Gordon with the teachings from Isaacson with the motivation to access, authorized data for the potential purchase, from device or software module and interact with a network-based entity to ultimately generate authorized data transmitted to an application, where the software module represents a novel approach to providing data to an application in ways the enable a simple and easy payment process without the user needing to manually enter payment data. Isaacson [0017].
B. In regards to Claims 19, Gordon does not specifically disclose, further comprising communicating with a distributed ledger comprising a blockchain executing on a distributed plurality of automated nodes; this is disclosed by Isaacson [0734: the blockchain service can present the information via the user interface. The access to the user interface can be via a website, an app, a browser API interface, a selectable object or a selectable menu via social media, in a digital wallet interface, or an Apple Pay interface or Android pay interface, etc.];
and the automatically crediting the at least one account comprises performing a transaction to credit a cryptocurrency token to a cryptocurrency wallet. This is disclosed by Isaacson [0708: incorporate the wallet into a browser such that the user’s credit/debit/other payment account is stored, their address, as well as their altcoin wallet. Alternately, a protocol can communicate data between a browser (which uses the API between the browser and the merchant) and the altcoin wallet. For example, the wallet may share the address and the private key to perform a payment but then receive the details to add the payment to the blockchain]. The motivation being the same as claim 9.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gordon (US Patent 11431834) in view of Akbarpour (US Publication 2022/0335509) in further view of Holmdahl (US Publication 2012/0324493) and Freitas (US Patent 11397846).
A. In regards to Claim 16, Gordon does not specifically disclose, further comprising communicating with a generative pre-trained transformer comprising a large language model, which processes social network records and generates the proposal, referral, or recommendation of the content. This is disclosed by Freitas [Col. 9 Ln 4-12: the improper reference detection models utilize a pretrained Bidirectional Encoder Representations from Transformers (BERT) base model. Alternatively, the improper reference detection models may utilize a pretrained SpanBERT-base, BERT-large, or SpanBERT-large model. In another example, a large language model such as a Generative Pre-trained Transformer 3 (GPT-3) or Turing model may be used to achieve better performance. These models are known in the art].
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the invention for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the teachings of Gordon with the teachings from Freitas since they are of analogous art it would have been obvious and reasonable to combine the social network interface of Gordon with the large language model of Microsoft since such a combination would allow for highly automated payment processing
Response to Arguments
Applicant's filed arguments have been fully considered but have not been found persuasive.
A. Applicant argues regarding the 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejection that the operation of the machine improves the machine itself, to provide better recommendations for the subject user and for other users. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applying the abstract idea using more computer components does not assuage the abstract idea; and updating a user profile database record is not an improvement to the computer or any other technology. Moreover, Applicant’s specification does not provide any technical evidence/support of how operating the machine improves the machine itself; provides a solution to a technical problem, improves the function of social networks or improves content delivery. As such, there is no improvement of the computer or any technology provided by the amended claims.
Applicant’s argument that combination of elements provides an inventive concept. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claims are directed to steps which set forth commercial interactions, advertising, managing personal behavior including social activities, and following rules or instructions, which are applied by generic computer components. Using sensors integrated into computing device makes up part of the computer component used to apply the abstract idea, and at most amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity. Merely applying an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. See at least TLI Communications LLC v. AV Automotive LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (mere recitation of concrete or tangible components is not an inventive concept).
Applicant argues that the claims recite a specific, unconventional accounting method where a payment is distributed to an account associated with a proposal or referral, which is explicitly distinct from each of an account associated with the user, a proprietor of the content, and a proprietor of the social network, which is an improvement in computer-centric systems for content recommendation and network management. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant’s invention solves an entrepreneurial problem rather than a technological one. Payment distribution using distributed ledgers and cryptocurrency tokens, does not improve distributed ledgers or cryptocurrency. Providing feedback to influence the selection of advertisement is an abstract idea in and of itself. Thus, Applicant’s improvement is directed to the abstract idea and not a technology.
Based on the foregoing, the claims, in view of Alice do not connote an improvement to another technology or technical field; the claims do not amount to an improvement to the functioning of a computer itself; and the claims do not move beyond a general link of the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Therefore, the current 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejection is maintained.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Errol CARVALHO whose telephone number is (571)272-9987. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9:30-7:00 Alt Fri.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ilana Spar can be reached on 571- 270-7537. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/E CARVALHO/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3622
1 See, Alice Corp. Pty Ltd. v. CLS Bank lnt'l, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 2360 (2014) (noting that none of the hardware recited “offers a meaningful limitation beyond generally linking ‘the use of the [method] to a particular technological environment,’ that is, implementation via computers” (citing Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 610-11 (2010))).