DETAILED ACTION
The present application (Application No. 18/357,812), filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This Application is a continuation of Application No. 16746359, filed 01/17/2020, now U.S. Patent # 11,869,035.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 02 July, 2025, has been entered.
Status of Claims
Claims 1, 8, 15, are amended. Claims 6, 13, 20, are now canceled. Claims 21-23, are new. Therefore, claims 1-5, 7-12, 14-19, 21-23, are currently pending and addressed below.
Compact prosecution
A hash tag, by definition, is indicated by the special hash character “#”. Therefore, a hashtag perfectly meets the pseudo definition of “a subject tag” provided in the original disclosure at ¶17: “In various embodiments, the subject tag may be indicated by a special character, such as a hashtag (#).” Besides this broad and nonspecific definition, the only examples of subject tags disclosed in the specification (see fig. 5, ¶17, 25, 31, 35) are indeed hashtags. Therefore, besides all specific examples which only and specifically disclose hashtags beginning with the “special hash character #”, the only language that needs to be met from this single disclosure instance at ¶17 which makes specific reference to hashtags is that of “a special character”, which a hashtag perfectly fulfills.
If the specification clearly and unambiguously intended to say that “a subject tag” could be something other than a hashtag, then instead of saying, as it does in ¶17: “the subject tag may be indicated by a special character, such as a hashtag (#)” it would have instead said something along the lines of “the subject tag may be indicated by any special character (emphasis added), including one other than a hash #, as in a hashtag”. Furthermore, specific examples other than hashtags would have been provided. As it turns out, there is a clear preponderance in regards to what the meaning of a subject tag is, to suggest that the specification simply calls a hashtag “a subject tag”, and that in the context of the specification “a subject tag” is a hashtag.
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 1-5, 7-12, 14-19, 21-23, 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.
Step 1: In the instant claims 1-5, 7, 21, are directed to a method (a process), claims 8-12, 14, 22, are directed to a system, and claims 15-19, 23, are directed to a product, therefore the claims are directed to statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A- Prong 1: Independent claim1 comprises steps of: obtaining, a plurality of posts from a first social media operator and from a second social media operator; identifying, by the computer-based system, a subject tag in a social media post from the plurality of posts comprising a predefined text character representing an instruction to distribute the social media post to a recipient group; identifying, a recipient group for a distribution of the social media post based at least in part on the
The claims are specifically directed to a concept of merchants delivering content (a post) targeted to a group of recipients, wherein selecting a specific post for publishing is based on a common preference of the group of recipients. Accordingly, the claimed steps represent a method of organizing commercial interactions comprising advertising, marketing and sales activities, which falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” abstract idea grouping, wherein all the claim steps can be seen as being part of the abstract idea of providing targeted offers.
The claimed steps are steps of collecting/tracking data (identifying, transmitting, receiving, storing, gathering), analyzing data, making determinations/correlations/comparisons (filtering), and displaying/presenting data. All these steps, but for the use of generic computer components that execute them, are generic functions performed by general-purpose computers, which relate to concepts that can be performed in the human mind, including observations, evaluations, judgements or opinions.
Claims 8 and 15 recite substantially similar subject matter and the same subsequent analysis should be applied thereto.
Step 2A- Prong 2: Additional elements include: “a computer-based system”; “a computing device comprising a processor and a memory”; “machine-readable instructions stored in the memory”; “a recipient device”; “a web page”.
These additional elements are recited at a high level of generality and the steps that they execute represent generic functions which can be performed by a general-purpose computer without any novel programming or improvement in the operation of the computer itself. These additional elements are merely invoked as tools to perform an abstract idea (mere instructions to apply the exception) as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(f). The mere nominal recitation of generic computer components does not take the claim limitations out of the mental processes grouping.
The claimed “computer-based system” does not even recite a network. The “system” features of the invention represent a particular technological environment, merely a particular technical field of use to which the judicial exception is linked to, and this technological environment is used to merely transmit, receive, store, gather, analyze, make determinations/correlations with, and display data.
Regarding the newly amended limitations:
“the subject tag comprising a predefined text character representing an instruction to distribute the social media post to a recipient group”
“the recipient group for a distribution of the social media post based at least in part on the identification of the predefined text character in the subject tag and a distribution group identifier in the subject tag the distribution group identifier being used to identify the recipient group from a plurality of members associated with the computer- based system”
the examiner notes that by the late 1980s, the hash symbol started to be used with Internet Relay Chat (IRC) to label groups. (<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hashtag#cite_note-14>, “The pound sign was adopted for use within IRC (Internet Relay Chat) networks around 1988 to label groups and topics.[14] Channels or topics that are available across an entire IRC network are prefixed with a hash symbol # (as opposed to those local to a server, which uses an ampersand '&').[15]”). Therefore, these subject tag and/or hashtag limitations has been well-understood, routine and conventional in the field long before the effective filing date of the instant invention.
Accordingly, the additional elements when the claim elements are viewed individually and as a whole do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Step 2B: Based on the reasoning provided under Step 2A- Prong 2, the claims under Step 2B do not recite “significantly more” than the abstract idea. At this point, either under the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping scenario where all the claim steps can be seen as being part of the abstract ideas, or under the “Mental Processes” grouping scenario, the analysis is terminated because the same analysis with respect to Step 2A Prong Two applies here in Step 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. That is, these additional elements are recited at a high level of generality and the steps that they execute represent conventional functions which can be performed by a general-purpose computer without any improvement to the programming technique or improvement in the operation of the computer itself.
The dependent claims have been considered. Additional limitations recited in the dependent claims include: further filtering criteria; executing conditional rules (proximity expiration date, a current date). The additional elements are each functional generic computer components that perform the generic functions of processing, communicating and displaying, all common to electronics and computer systems. When considered as a whole, the same analysis with respect to Step 2A Prong Two and step 2B, apply to these additional elements. They cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
The dependent claims appear to merely limit the common preference and/or underlying filtering implementations and the various considerations for filtering and selecting the post, and therefore only limit the application of the idea, and not add significantly more than the idea (i.e. "PEG" Step 2B=No).
Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-4, 7-11, 14-18, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hammad et al. (US 2012/0271691) (hereinafter “Hammad1691”), in view of Mouline et al. (US 2013/0304904) (hereinafter “Mouline4904”), and further in view of Hartwell et al. (US 2015/0281307) (hereinafter “Hartwell1307”).
Hammad1691 incorporates by reference DeWitt et al. (US 200/90076896) (hereinafter “DeWitt6896”) and Carlson et al. (US 2010/0114677) (hereinafter “Carlson4677”), which has also been cited by the Examiner.
Regarding claims 1, 8, 15, Hammad1691 discloses:
(obtaining, by a computer-based system, posts associated with a merchant from a social media operator). A message broker (201) and/or the media controller (115) is configured to spread loyalty campaign messages of a merchant to a broad target audience on the social networking site (403) using the social networking account of the merchant and/or the social networking accounts of users (e.g., 101) who receive benefits of the offer campaign (e.g., discounts, rewards, gifts, cash back, statement credits, etc.) (see at least Hammad1691, ¶326). Merchant offers to users (e.g., 101) of the social networking site (403) (posts associated with a merchant from a social media operator) (see at least Hammad1691, fig. 26, ¶328-329, 331). An application (441) is installed in the social networking site (403) to bring merchant offers to the users (e.g., 101) of the social networking site (403) (posts associated with a merchant from a social media operator) (see at least Hammad1691, fig. 26, ¶328).
The application (441) provides a merchant interface to allow a merchant to specify the offers (186) and associated offer rules (203), including the conditions to be met by a recipient of the offers (186) to qualify for the benefit of the offers (186) and the identification of the benefit of the offers (186). (see at least Hammad1691, fig. 26, ¶329). The portal (143) is coupled with the application (441) to store data in the data warehouse (149) to associate the user social account (447) with the account data (111) that corresponds to the financial payment account (e.g., consumer account (146)) of the user (101) in accordance with the enrollment data, and to associate the offer (186) with the merchant social account (449). The user social account (447) identifies the social networking account (445) of the user (101) in the social networking site (403); and the merchant social account (449) identifies the social networking account (443) of the merchant in the social networking site (403). (see at least Hammad1691, fig. 26, ¶331).
(obtaining, by a computer-based system, a plurality of posts from a first social media operator and from a second social media operator). The computing apparatus is configured to have the generic capability to post messages to a plurality of social networking sites (see at least Hammad1691, ¶41). Plurality of social media operators (Twitter, Facebook, etc) (a first social media operator and a second social media operator) (see at least Hammad1691, fig. 4, ¶370). The portal (143) provides an open platform to allow the merchant to run the offer campaign on various social networking sites (e.g., Facebook, Twitter, Foursquare) (see at least Hammad1691, fig. 4, ¶370). The community data allows a merchant to customize communications for the community using one or more social networking sites/applications without affecting merchants in other communities (see at least Hammad1691, ¶295). The offer-related message processing system provides the capability to define output to various social networking sites (see at least Hammad1691, ¶300). Hammad1691 therefore teaches these claimed “first portion” and “second portion” limitations.
(identifying, by the computer-based system, a recipient group for a distribution of the social media post). Since the system of Hammad1691 is configured to execute instructions to distribute messages to users in a social network, then these instructions and this message distribution implementation represents a request to distribute messages in a SN.
(a recipient group) (a recipient group for a distribution of the social media post). Advertisement campaigns may be formulated to target a cluster of consumers or cardholders (“a recipient group” as claimed) (see at least Hammad1691, ¶147). A data exchange apparatus may identify cluster data (a recipient group for a distribution of the social media post based at least in part on an identifier) based upon consumer search engine data, social network data, and payment transaction data to identify like groups of individuals who would respond favorably to particular types of benefits such as coupons and statement credits (see at least Hammad1691, ¶147). In one embodiment, the computing apparatus is configured to group offer related communications according to community, which includes at least one merchant and a plurality of users enrolled in the community to receive offers from the merchants in the community (see at least Hammad1691, ¶41). The groups are defined based on aggregate information (e.g., by time of day, or household), or segment (e.g., by cluster, propensity, demographics, cluster IDs, and/or factor values), and in one embodiment, the groups are defined in part via one or more social networks (see at least Hammad1691, ¶90).
Based on the transaction data (109) or transaction records (301) and/or the registration data, the profile generator (121) is to identify the clusters of cardholders and the values representing the affinity of the cardholders to the clusters (see at least Hammad1691, ¶145, 459-460).
Advertisement selector (133) uses the user specific profile (131) as a filter and/or a set of criteria to generate, identify, select and/or prioritize, and/or customize advertisement data for the user (101) (see at least Hammad1691, ¶74).
(identifying, by the computer-based system, a set of recipients for the recipient group based at least part on individual recipients in the set of recipients sharing a common preference). Merchant’s posts targeted to clusters or groups of social users that are clustered based on common preferences or affinity as explained above, represent a “a subset of the posts from the plurality of posts according to a common preference”.
(filtering, by the computer-based system, a subset of the posts from the plurality of posts, the subset of the posts being … for the merchant received from the first social media operator or the second social media operator).
(identifying, by the computer-based system, a set of recipients for the recipient group based at least part on individual recipients in the set of recipients sharing a common preference).
User preferences (see at least Hammad1691, ¶46, 60), and targeting rules indicative of preferences of merchants (see at least ¶213-214). User tracker (113) combines information about the offline transaction and the online activities to provide significant marketing advantages (see at least ¶105). Advertisement selector (133) uses the user specific profile (131) as a filter and/or a set of criteria to generate, identify, select and/or prioritize, and/or customize advertisement data for the user (101) (see at least Hammad1691, ¶74).
Since user profile data includes user preferences, then advertisement data for the user is targeted based on “a common preference” (e.g., merchant’s preferences (target criteria) and user preferences). Merchant’s posts targeted (“filtering” as claimed) clusters or groups of social users that are clustered based on common preferences or affinity as explained above, represent a “a subset of the posts from the plurality of posts according to a common preference”.
(inserting, by the computer-based system, a particular post of the subset of the posts into a web page displayed by a recipient device). Various scenarios and types of points of interaction where messages are displayed (see at least Hammad1691, fig. 1, 9, ¶208, 212, 532).
(system comprising: a computing device comprising a processor and a memory; and machine-readable instructions stored in the memory). System comprising computing devices, processors, servers, memory, computer readable media, interfaces and software instructions stored in memory that enable the system to execute the steps of the method over network communications and to enable interaction between participants and the system (see at least Hammad1691, fig. 6-7, ¶548-564, 514, 541) (processor) (memory) (computer readable media).
Hammad1691 does not disclose:
(identifying, by the computer-based system, a subject tag in a social media post from the plurality of posts based at least in part on the subject tag comprising a predefined text character representing an instruction to distribute the social media post to a recipient group).
(identifying, by the computer-based system, [[a]] the recipient group for a distribution of the social media post based at least in part on the identification of the predefined text character in the subject tag and a distribution group identifier in the subject tag the distribution group identifier being used to identify the recipient group from a plurality of members associated with the computer- based system).
However, Mouline4904 discloses:
In an embodiment, the notifications system can receive social media data. The social media data is processed and analyzed, and combined with the visibility interface, e.g., using overlays. (see at least Mouline4904, ¶78).
For example, with respect to Twitter, an operator or user can specify that the notifications system monitor a particular hashtag. Hashtags (e.g., "#topic") (the subject tag comprising a predefined text character). are used to identify groups and topics (see at least Mouline4904, ¶78).
Filter criteria can be specified. The criteria may comprise one or more keywords, as well as geographic constraints pertaining to the origin of tweets. The user may also specify static or dynamic alert thresholds that must be reached before the system will "flag" a particular event. (see at least Mouline4904, ¶78).
Since “hashtags are used to identify groups and topics”, and hashtags which identify topics are represented by “hashtags (e.g., "#topic"), then it is implicit from this above statement/language that Mouline4904 also teaches: hashtags (e.g., "#group"). Accordingly, Mouline4904 discloses:
(identifying, by the computer-based system, a subject tag in a social media post from the plurality of posts based at least in part on the subject tag comprising a predefined text character representing an instruction to distribute the social media post to a recipient group).
(identifying, by the computer-based system, [[a]] the recipient group for a distribution of the social media post based at least in part on the identification of the predefined text character in the subject tag and a distribution group identifier in the subject tag the distribution group identifier being used to identify the recipient group from a plurality of members associated with the computer- based system).
Hammad1691 and Mouline4904 are both configured to execute instructions to distribute messages to users in a social network, and accordingly they are both analogous art. Further, since they are both configured to execute instructions to distribute messages to users in a social network, then they both teach “a request to distribute” messages in a SN. Mouline4904 teaches the improvement that the messages may include “subject tags” such as hashtags. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Hammad1691, in view of Mouline4904, to include the above claimed text character subject tag limitations, since doing so is applying a known technique (the web content can be in the form of “subject tags” such as hashtags) to improve a similar method for delivering web content to users on the social networking site, in the same way, wherein this improved functionality is a predictable result within the capabilities of one of ordinary skill in the art. Moreover, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to expand in this way, since “subject tags” such as hashtags are an easy way to tie users to a merchant product or brand.
Hammad1691 does not disclose: (filtered based at least in part on an identification of a duplicative post with the subject tag).
However, Hartwell1307 discloses: It is an additional object of the present disclosure to provide systems and methods for adaptively selecting social and other media posts as well as advertisements for display to a particular user (see at least Hartwell1307, ¶8, 60).
User's social network connections posts to Facebook or Twitter (therefore plurality of social media operators) including a hashtag or other social media topic/trend indicator (see at least Hartwell1307, ¶57-58). Post containing the hashtag or indicator (see at least Hartwell1307, ¶57-58). Post may also contain metadata or other hidden information that allows the application to receive additional information not apparent to the user and reflect a particular configuration, for example, the time, location, directions, details, and/or other attendees for the event (see at least Hartwell1307, ¶57-58).
Hartwell1307 further discloses: Determining duplicate posts and filtering posts based on a determination of duplicate posts presentation (see at least Hartwell1307, ¶68-69).
As per above, Hartwell1307, as well as the combined system of Hammad1691 in view of Mouline4904, are analogous art, since they are both configured in part to distribute posts or offers from merchants on possibly one or more social network application or SN platform (plurality of social media operators), and to filter said posts or offers from merchants based on some criteria. Likewise, they both teach posts with the subject tag (hashtag or metadata).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to filter the posts with subject tags in the previously formulated Hammad1691/Mouline4904 combination, for the purpose of detecting and preventing duplicate posts as taught by Hartwell1307, since this deduplication methodology may prevent the same post from the same media source from showing up in a user's social and other media stream or presentation multiple times (see at least Hartwell1307, ¶69) (see at least Hartwell1307, ¶69). Moreover, this modification would have been obvious, since this would be a simple substitution of one known element or filtering basis (i.e., duplicate posts, as taught in Hartwell1307), for another (i.e., group or cluster affinity, as taught in combined Hammad1691/Mouline4904 system), to obtain the predictable result of wasting advertising resources with the presentation of duplicate posts guarding against annoying the recipient with the same post.
Regarding claims 2-3, 9-10, 16-17, Hammad1691 in view of Mouline4904 and Hartwell1307 discloses: All the limitations of the corresponding parent claims (claim 1; claim 8; and claim 15; respectively) as per the above rejection statements.
Regarding the limitations: (a geographic location of a merchant associated with the subject tag),
Hammad1691 discloses: Transaction data can be data associated with a geographic location or proximity to a merchant (see at least Hammad1691, ¶60, 69, 73, 82, 90, 337); and the Hammad1691/Mouline4904 combination formulated in the rejection of the independent parent claims, teaches merchant associated with the subject tag (merchant associated with the subject tag).
DeWitt6896 discloses: The offer may be based, for example, on a predetermined distance, wherein the predetermined distance may be a distance between the merchant (e.g., a point of service of the merchant or the location of the inventory) and the consumer device requesting the inventory (within a predefined distance) (see at least DeWitt6896, ¶7, 16, 18). Since the offer may be based, on a predetermined distance between the merchant and the consumer, then metadata on a predetermined distance is stored in the system and used as a targeting basis.
Current user location can be determined using near field communication (NFC) (see at least Carlson4677, ¶60), wherein a predetermined communication range or predetermined distance from the merchant (within a predefined distance) is implicit in NFC.
Regarding claims 4, 11, 18, Hammad1691 in view of Mouline4904 and Hartwell1307 discloses: All the limitations of the corresponding parent claims (claim 1; claim 8; and claim 15; respectively) as per the above rejection statements.
Hammad1691 discloses: (wherein the subset of the posts being are further filtered based at least in part on an expiration date stored in metadata associated with the particular post of the subset of the plurality of posts). The offers may be valid only for a limited period of time (an expiration date) starting from the date of the previous transaction (see at least Hammad1691, ¶186).
Regarding claims 7, 14, Hammad1691 in view of Mouline4904 and Hartwell1307 discloses: All the limitations of the corresponding parent claims (claim 1; and claim 8; respectively) as per the above rejection statements.
In particular, the Hammad1691/ Mouline4904 combination formulated in the rejection of the independent parent claims, teaches the limitation: (wherein obtaining the plurality of posts from the first social media operator and from the second social media operator further comprising: transmitting, by the computer-based system, a first social post request to the first social media operator, the first social post request comprising the subject tag; and transmitting, by the computer-based system, a second social post request to the second social media operator, the second social post request comprising the subject tag).
Claims 5, 12, 19, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hammad et al. (US 2012/0271691) (hereinafter “Hammad1691”), in view of Mouline et al. (US 2013/0304904) (hereinafter “Mouline4904”), and further in view of Hartwell et al. (US 2015/0281307) (hereinafter “Hartwell1307”), and further in view of Williams et al. (WO 2013130835) (hereinafter “Williams0835”).
Regarding claims 5, 12, 19, Hammad1691 in view of Mouline4904 and Hartwell1307 discloses: All the limitations of the corresponding parent claims (claims 1 and 4; claims 8 and 11; and claims 15 and 18; respectively) as per the above rejection statements.
Hammad1691 discloses: Functionality for determining that the conditions for the redemption of an offer are met (see at least Hammad1691, ¶186), and further discloses that offers are updated (see at least Hammad1691, ¶185),
therefore it would have been obvious to try, by one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to remove expired offers in the context of Hammad1691, since in light of conditional instructions associated with offer validity (¶186, “valid only for a limited period of time starting from the date of the previous transaction”), then removing expired offers is one of a finite number of predictable scenarios (a finite number of identified, predictable potential solutions) to the recognized need of updating an offer, and one of ordinary skill in the art could have pursued the known potential solutions with a reasonable expectation of success.
However even if it could be argued that this teaching of determining that conditions for the redemption of an offer are met offer conditions Hammad1691 (and/or the combination of Hammad1691 in view of Mouline4904 and Hartwell1307) does not specifically teach the limitation: (determining, by the computer-based system, that a current date is later than the expiration date; and removing, by the computer-based system, at least one post from the plurality of posts in response to determining that the current date is later than the expiration date);
Williams0835 discloses: The merchant 610 may fill in an expiration date for the coupon and the coupon will be automatically removed from the business profile page after the specified expiration date, such as by the coupon and rewards application 644 (see at least Williams0835, fig. 6, ¶40, 45). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the expiration features of the posts in Hammad1691, to further determine that the offers are no longer valid and as a result, removing these expired offers, since this doing so will avoid the nuisance of presenting invalid offers to consumers, and will likewise optimize the resources invested in the promotional campaign.
Claims 21-23, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hammad et al. (US 2012/0271691) (hereinafter “Hammad1691”), in view of Mouline et al. (US 2013/0304904) (hereinafter “Mouline4904”), and further in view of Hartwell et al. (US 2015/0281307) (hereinafter “Hartwell1307”), and further in view of Reynolds et al. (US 10,748,222) (hereinafter “Reynolds8222”).
Regarding claims 21-23, Hammad1691 in view of Mouline4904 and Hartwell1307 discloses: All the limitations of the corresponding parent claims (claim 1; claim 8; and claim 15; respectively) as per the above rejection statements.
Compact prosecution: Regarding these claim limitations, the specification (see fig. 4A, par. [36-37]) only discloses: “Referring to FIG. 4A, a screenshot 400 of a transaction account page. The advertisement distributor may determine that a post 420 should be distributed to the transaction account holder. The post 420 may be displayed adjacent to or as part of a recent transaction.”
The parent Hammad1691/Mouline4904 combination does not disclose: (wherein inserting the particular post into the web page displayed by the recipient device further comprises including a link in the particular post, the link being configured to display a location of a merchant associated with the particular post on a map).
However, Reynolds8222 discloses: Upon a request to display a record associated with a financial transaction, and upon determining a location of a merchant associated with the financial transaction using merchant information, the system displays a customizable map interface integrated into the record associated with the financial transaction (see at least Reynolds8222, abstract). The transaction records 452 can include transaction details and the customizable map interface 456 using or based on the location of the merchant associated with the transaction. (see at least Reynolds8222, fig. 4, ¶5:16-19). The customizable map interface 456 can be added to the records 452 to allow the user viewing the physical location associated with the transaction (see at least Reynolds8222, fig. 4, ¶6:40-43). The financial statement 450 can include additional transaction details (e.g., an address of the merchant) either listed directly in the financial statement 450 or accessible via a hyperlink (see at least Reynolds8222, fig. 4, ¶6:54-57).
As per above, Reynolds8222, and the parent Hammad1691/Mouline4904 combination, are both configured to execute instructions to distribute messages to users over a network, and accordingly they are both analogous art. Reynolds8222 teaches the benefit/improvement of added locational visualization features. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the parent Hammad1691/Mouline4904 system combination with these above features of Reynolds8222, since doing so is applying a known technique (the locational visualization of Reynolds8222) to improve a similar method for delivering web content to users (as taught by the Hammad1691/Mouline4904 combination), in the same way, wherein this improved functionality is a predictable result within the capabilities of one of ordinary skill in the art. Moreover, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to expand in this way, since this enhanced locational visualization feature, could help the customer recollect the circumstances surrounding the transaction (see at least Reynolds8222, fig. 4, ¶6:54-57).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 07/02/2025 have been fully considered.
35 U.S.C. 101
Applicant's arguments regarding 35 U.S.C. 101 are not persuasive. The rejection is maintained.
Applicant argues:
Applicant's Specification discusses how claims 1-5, 7-12, and 14-19 are directed to a technical improvement because the claims are directed to a technical solution for a technical problem relating to the redistribution of social media posts hosted by a social media provider.
To solve technical problems with redistributing content hosted on social media computing devices to targeted client devices.
Additionally, the technical solution recited in the claims amounts to at least an improvement in redistributing content hosted on social media computing devices to targeted client devices. As such, the claims enable a system to identify a request to redistribute a social media post by a subject tag and the subject tag can be used to direct to the social media post to a targeted group of client devices.
In response:
The claimed features associated with “redistributing content hosted on social media computing devices to targeted client devices”, and/or “enable a system to identify a request to redistribute a social media post by a subject tag and the subject tag can be used to direct to the social media post to a targeted group of client devices”, only comprise steps of collecting/tracking data (identifying, transmitting, receiving, storing, gathering), analyzing data, making determinations/correlations/comparisons (filtering), and displaying/presenting data; wherein all. but for the use of generic computer components that execute them, are generic functions performed by general-purpose computers, which relate to concepts that can be performed in the human mind, including observations, evaluations, judgements or opinions.
Any improvement that may be associated with this solution of “redistributing content hosted on social media computing devices to targeted client devices” (that is, any improvement in the particular set of targeting conditions that merchants apply to select and deliver content i.e., a post, targeted to a group of recipients), are merely improvements in the realm of abstract ideas, unrelated to technology. The claims do not formulate a technical solution representative of improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(a), nor does the invention applies or uses the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(e).
The internet/network social network features of the invention only represent a particular technological environment, merely a particular technical field of use to which the judicial exception is linked to, and this technological environment is used to merely identify, filter transmit, receive, store, gather, analyze, make determinations/correlations with, and display data.
Furthermore, regarding the newly amended limitations:
“the subject tag comprising a predefined text character representing an instruction to distribute the social media post to a recipient group”
“the recipient group for a distribution of the social media post based at least in part on the identification of the predefined text character in the subject tag and a distribution group identifier in the subject tag the distribution group identifier being used to identify the recipient group from a plurality of members associated with the computer- based system”
the examiner notes that by the late 1980s, the hash symbol started to be used with Internet Relay Chat (IRC) to label groups. (<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hashtag#cite_note-14>, “The pound sign was adopted for use within IRC (Internet Relay Chat) networks around 1988 to label groups and topics.[14] Channels or topics that are available across an entire IRC network are prefixed with a hash symbol # (as opposed to those local to a server, which uses an ampersand '&').[15]”). Therefore, these subject tag and/or hashtag limitations has been well-understood, routine and conventional in the field long before the effective filing date of the instant invention.
Accordingly, the additional elements when the claim elements are viewed individually and as a whole do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
35 U.S.C. 103
New grounds of rejection are presented. Applicant's arguments are considered moot in view of the new grounds of rejection above.
Conclusion
The prior art now made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US20110066498 (Wojcicki); US20140067539 (Burt).
The prior art previously made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 20050198692 (Zurko)
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARIO IOSIF whose telephone number is (571) 270-7785. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Wed, 9:00am-4:00pm teleworking.
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, Waseem Ashraf can be reached on 571-270-39485491. 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.
/Mario C. Iosif/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3621