DETAILED ACTION
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 May 18, 2026 has been entered. Claims 1 and 14 have been amended. Claims 1-24 are presented for examination.
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 .
Priority
The claims of the instant application are not fully supported by parent provisional application no. 63/050,496; therefore, for purposes of examination, the claims in the instant application are granted an effective filing date of December 13, 2020 (i.e., the filing date of the instant application). For example, while there are mentions of machine learning, social networking sites, and a platform, parent provisional application no. 63/050,496 does not explicitly disclose a fully computer-based method (as utilized within the context of the method claims) or one or more hardware processors, databases, or a memory (as utilized within the context of the apparatus claims).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed May 18, 2026 have been considered but they are not fully persuasive.
Regarding the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101, Applicant states, “These limitations recite a specific technological implementation for automated propagation-event attribution across a networked computing environment.” (Page 11 of Applicant’s response) The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The various dashboards presented in the claims are simply displays that present different information. The required display capabilities to present the recited dashboards may be performed by any generic graphical display and/or processing element. Customizing the type of information displayed in each dashboard does not require use of a specialized interface or a specific technological implementation.
Applicant argues that “claim 1 as amended is not directed to subject matter capable of practical performance in the human mind.” (Page 12 of Applicant’s response) The Examiner points out that the claimed invention largely provides a generic online environment for people to share and track the propagation of information. Aside from the general link to technology, humans can share information and report a source of information. Applicant further mentions the use of lineage trackers (page 12 of Applicant’s response). Lineage trackers may simply incorporate information regarding a source of information. The claims do not actively generate the lineage trackers with a machine within the scope of the claims and, even if they did, there are no specific technical details presented as to how a machine handles generation of a lineage tracker in a special technological manner.
On page 14 of the response, Applicant states, “The claimed arrangement further improves operation of the social networking platform by enabling machine-based tracking of propagated events across interconnected dashboards and network entities without requiring manual review or user-by-user tracing of descendant interactions.” The claims do not present specific technical details as to how “machine-based tracking of propagated events across interconnected dashboards and network entities without requiring manual review or user-by-user tracing of descendant interactions” is actively performed.
Regarding the prior art rejections, Applicant’s claim amendments and arguments are deemed to be persuasive in overcoming the rejections.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Independent claims 1 and 14 have been amended to recite “storing the first post in a tracking database in association with a machine-generated lineage identifier corresponding to the first post”; “monitoring for one or more social impact events descendent from the first post by a second entity via a particular community dashboard of the second entity, including electronically correlating the one or more social impact causes with the machine-generated lineage identifier corresponding to the first post”; and “storing social impact event information identifying the one or more social impact events by the second entity in the tracking database in association with the machine-generated lineage identifier to generate a tracked propagation relationship between the first post and the one or more descendant social impact events.” There is no reference to a “machine-generated lineage identifier” corresponding to any post in Applicant’s original disclosure, thereby presenting new matter. Applicant’s original disclosure mentions the use of machine learning in paragraphs 7 and 78 of the Specification:
[0007] Utilizing and applying a machine learning sentiment analysis algorithm to learn public sentiment exclusively in response to social impact and corporate social responsibility initiatives undertaken by nonprofit and/or for-profit organizations, shared across the ImpactWayv Platform;
[00078] Posts mentioning particular companies on the ImpactWayv Platform, all of which will be in response or in relation to their given corporate social responsibility initiatives and activities, will be analyzed using a machine learning trained sentiment analysis algorithm, with social impact-related sentiment analysis scores and trends for each company displayed within their respective profiles on the ImpactWayv Marketplace.
However, there is still no mention of how events and posts are correlated, much less with the use of a “machine-generated lineage identifier.” Again, the related claim language (identified above) presents new matter.
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 1-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claims 1-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claimed invention is directed to “generating a social engagement metric based on engagement by a user with a post on a virtual newsfeed provided for that user on a social network platform” (abstract) without significantly more.
Step
Analysis
1: Statutory Category?
Yes – The claims fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter. Process (claims 1-13), Apparatus (claims 14-24)
Independent claims:
Step
Analysis
2A – Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited?
Yes – Aside from the additional elements identified in Step 2A – Prong 2 below, the claims recite:
[Claim 1] A method of monitoring social impact of an entity on a social networking platform and generating a social impact metric based on the social impact by the entity, said method comprising:
storing social causes in a social cause database, each social cause being associated with at least one subject entity, the social causes including a first social cause and a second social cause different from the first social cause;
generating a main presentation for a first entity, the main presentation including a first entity profile, an impact presentation, and a community presentation, the impact presentation including a list of posts by the first entity involving one or more particular social causes, the community presentation including a list of posts by friends of the first entity;
enabling the first user to include in the first post one or more links to one or more of a donation opportunity to a first subject entity associated with the first social cause, a volunteering opportunity associated with the first social cause, or a learning opportunity about the first social cause;
publishing the first post to a network of entities, the publishing the first post including adding the first post to the impact presentation of the first entity and to the community presentations of the network of entities;
storing the first post in a tracking database in associated with a machine-generated lineage identifier corresponding to the first post [NOTE: The machine generation of the linear identifier is not performed within the scope of the claim. The identifier is stored and how it was created does not serve to patentably limit the scope of the claims.];
issuing first social credits as to the first social cause to the first entity for the first post and storing the first social credits in a social credit database;
monitoring for one or more social impact events descendant from the first post by a second entity via a particular community presentation of the second entity, including correlating the one or more social impact events with the machine-generated lineage identifier corresponding to the first post [NOTE: The machine generation of the linear identifier is not performed within the scope of the claim. The identifier is stored and how it was created does not serve to patentably limit the scope of the claims.], the second entity being an entity of the network of entities or an entity descendant therefrom, the one or more social impact events including one or more of an interaction event, a donation event involving the donation opportunity, a volunteering event involving the volunteering opportunity, a sharing-of-a-post event, or a learning event involving the learning opportunity;
storing social impact event information identifying the one or more social impact events by the second entity in the tracking database in association with the machine-generated linear identifier to generate a tracked propagation relationship between the first post and the one or more descendent social impact events [NOTE: The machine generation of the linear identifier is not performed within the scope of the claim. The identifier is stored and how it was created does not serve to patentably limit the scope of the claims.];
issuing second social credits as to the first social cause to the first entity for inducing the one or more social impact events by the second entity and storing the second social credits in the social credit database based on the tracked propagation relationship between the first post and the one or more descendent social impact events [NOTE: The machine generation of the linear identifier is not performed within the scope of the claim. The identifier is stored and how it was created does not serve to patentably limit the scope of the claims.];
issuing third social credits as to the first social cause to the second entity for the one or more social impact events and storing the third social credits in the social credit database;
generating a first social impact metric for the first entity as to the first social cause, the first social impact metric being based on the first social credits and the second social credits;
generating a second social impact metric for the second entity as to the first social cause, the second social impact metric being based on the third social credits;
publishing the first impact metric as to the first social cause in association with the first entity;
publishing the second social impact metric as to the first social cause in association with the second entity; and
enabling each of the at least one subject entity to identify target entities based on their impact metrics as to the first social cause and to communicate with the target entities.
It is noted that a database may simply be a collection of data.
Aside from the additional elements, the aforementioned claim details exemplify the abstract idea(s) of a mental process (since the details include concepts performed in the human mind, including an observation, evaluation, judgment, and/or opinion). As explained in MPEP § 2106.04(a)(1)(III), “[t]he courts consider a mental process (thinking) that ‘can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper’ to be an abstract idea. CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1372, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1695 (Fed. Cir. 2011).” The limitations reproduced above, as drafted, are a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting the additional elements identified in Step 2A – Prong 2 below, nothing in the claim elements precludes the steps from practically being performed in the mind and/or by a human using a pen and paper. For example, but for the recitations of generic computer and other processing components (identified in Step 2A – Prong 2 below), the respectively recited steps/functions of the claims, as drafted and set forth above, are a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations in the mind and/or with the use of pen and paper. For example, a human user can publish or share information, monitor interactions with the information, etc. A human user can share links; links per se are simply information. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind (and/or with pen and paper) but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Aside from the additional elements, the aforementioned claim details exemplify a method of organizing human activity (since the details include examples of commercial or legal interactions, including advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors, and/or business relations and managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions). More specifically, the evaluated process is related to “generating a social engagement metric based on engagement by a user with a post on a virtual newsfeed provided for that user on a social network platform” (abstract), which (under its broadest reasonable interpretation) is an example of managing interactions between people including social activities (i.e., organizing human activity); therefore, aside from the recitations of generic computer and other processing components (identified in Step 2A – Prong 2 below), the limitations identified in the more detailed claim listing above encompass the abstract idea of organizing human activity.
Aside from the additional elements identified in Step 2A – Prong 2 below, apparatus claim 14 recites similar operations to those identified in claim 1 and, thus, this claim also recites the abstract ideas identified above.
2A – Prong 2: Integrated into a Practical Application?
No – The judicial exception(s) is/are not integrated into a practical application.
Claim 1 recites that the method is computer-based (in the preamble).
Claim 14 includes a computer-based system comprising one or more hardware processors; and a memory storing computer code that, when executed by the one or more hardware processors, causes the computer-based system to perform the disclosed operations.
Independent claims 1 and 14 recite generating a main dashboard for a first entity, the main dashboard including access to a first entity profile, an impact dashboard, and a community dashboard, the impact dashboard including a list of posts by the first entity involving one or more particular social causes, the community dashboard including a list of posts by friends of the first entity; and publishing the first post to a network of entities, the publishing the first post including adding the first post to the impact dashboard of the first entity and to the community dashboards of the network of entities; and monitoring for one or more social impact events descendant from the first post by a second entity via a particular community presentation of the second entity.
Independent claims 1 and 14 recite that the first impact metric and the second impact metric are published on the social media platform. This is an example of a general link to a field of use (e.g., a social media platform) and a general application of an implied display processing element to present information.
Independent claims 1 and 14 recite providing a posting interface to the first entity, the posting interface enabling the first entity to generate a first post pertaining to the first social cause, the posting interface including at least one first field to enable the first entity to include in the first post one or more links to one or more of a donation opportunity to a first subject entity associated with the first social cause, a volunteering opportunity associated with the first social cause, or a learning opportunity about the first social cause; and providing a communications interface to enable identification of target entities based on their impact metrics as to the first social cause and to communicate with the target entities through the social networking platform. The interface is simply a general-purpose processing element that facilitates communications at a high level.
Claims 1 and 14 recite electronically correlating the one or more social impact events with the machine-generated lineage identifier corresponding to the first post.
The claims as a whole merely describe how to generally “apply” the abstract idea(s) in a computer environment. The claimed processing elements are recited at a high level of generality and are merely invoked as a tool to perform the abstract idea(s). Simply implementing the abstract idea(s) on a general-purpose processor is not a practical application of the abstract idea(s); Applicant’s specification does not explicitly describe the additional elements, thereby implying that the claimed additional elements are, at best, simply implemented using general-purpose processing elements and other generic components. The specification describes a social network platform. Even if read into the claims as the intended environment, the additional elements are recited at a high level of generality and amount to no more than a general link to technology and to a technological environment.
The use of a processor/processing elements (e.g., as recited in all of the claims) facilitates generic processor operations. The use of a memory or machine-readable media with executable instructions (e.g., as recited in the apparatus claims) facilitates generic processor operations.
The additional elements are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as generic processing elements performing generic computer functions) such that the incorporation of the additional processing elements amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception(s) using generic computer components. There is no indication in the Specification that the steps/functions of the claims require any inventive programming or necessitate any specialized or other inventive computer components (i.e., the steps/functions of the claims may be implemented using capabilities of general-purpose computer components). Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims are directed to an abstract idea(s).
The processing components presented in the claims simply utilize the capabilities of a general-purpose computer and are, thus, merely tools to implement the abstract idea(s). As seen in MPEP § 2106.05(a)(I) and § 2106.05(f)(2), the court found that accelerating a process when the increased speed solely comes from the capabilities of a general-purpose computer is not sufficient to show an improvement in computer-functionality and it amounts to a mere invocation of computers or machinery as a tool to perform an existing process (see FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Sys., 839 F.3d 1089, 1095, 120 USPQ2d 1293, 1296 (Fed. Cir. 2016)).
There is no transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing recited in the claims.
Additionally, even when considering the operations of the additional elements as an ordered combination, the ordered combination does not amount to significantly more than what is present in the claims when each operation is considered separately.
2B: Claim(s) Provide(s) an Inventive Concept?
No – The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception(s). As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea(s) into a practical application, the use of the additional elements to perform the steps identified in Step 2A – Prong 1 above amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exceptions using a generic computer component(s). Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component(s) cannot provide an inventive concept. The claims are not patent eligible.
Dependent claims:
Step
Analysis
2A – Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited?
Yes – Aside from the additional elements identified in Step 2A – Prong 2 below, the claims recite:
[Claim 2] wherein the first entity is an individual.
[Claim 3] wherein the first entity is a company.
[Claim 4] identifying a look-alike entity with a similar social impact metric to the first social impact metric of the first entity.
[Claim 5] producing location-based content associated with a geographic region, the location-based content configured to assist the first entity to identify the first social cause or to assist the second user to identify the first post.
[Claim 6] notifying a particular subject entity associated with the first social cause when the one or more social impact events involving the first social cause occurs.
[Claim 7] notifying the first entity of the one or more social impact events of the second entity.
[Claim 8] rating the first entity and the second entity based on the first social impact metric and second social impact metric to identify the entity making greater impact on the first social cause.
[Claim 9] rating the first entity and the second entity based on the first social impact metric and second social impact metric to identify the entity making greater learning impact on the first social cause.
[Claim 10] rating the first entity and the second entity based on the first social impact metric and second social impact metric to identify the entity making greater volunteering impact on the first social cause.
[Claim 11] rating the first entity and the second entity based on the first social impact metric and second social impact metric to identify the entity making greater donation impact on the first social cause.
[Claim 12] rating the first entity and the second entity based on the first social impact metric and second social impact metric to identify the entity making greater sharing impact on the first social cause.
[Claim 13] identifying other entities associated with the first social cause.
The dependent claims further present details of the abstract ideas identified in regard to the independent claims above.
It is noted that a database may simply be a collection of data.
Aside from the additional elements, the aforementioned claim details exemplify the abstract idea(s) of a mental process (since the details include concepts performed in the human mind, including an observation, evaluation, judgment, and/or opinion). As explained in MPEP § 2106.04(a)(1)(III), “[t]he courts consider a mental process (thinking) that ‘can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper’ to be an abstract idea. CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1372, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1695 (Fed. Cir. 2011).” The limitations reproduced above, as drafted, are a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting the additional elements identified in Step 2A – Prong 2 below, nothing in the claim elements precludes the steps from practically being performed in the mind and/or by a human using a pen and paper. For example, but for the recitations of generic computer and other processing components (identified in Step 2A – Prong 2 below), the respectively recited steps/functions of the claims, as drafted and set forth above, are a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations in the mind and/or with the use of pen and paper. For example, a human user can publish or share information, monitor interactions with the information, etc. A human user can share links; links per se are simply information. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind (and/or with pen and paper) but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Aside from the additional elements, the aforementioned claim details exemplify a method of organizing human activity (since the details include examples of commercial or legal interactions, including advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors, and/or business relations and managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions). More specifically, the evaluated process is related to “generating a social engagement metric based on engagement by a user with a post on a virtual newsfeed provided for that user on a social network platform” (abstract), which (under its broadest reasonable interpretation) is an example of managing interactions between people including social activities (i.e., organizing human activity); therefore, aside from the recitations of generic computer and other processing components (identified in Step 2A – Prong 2 below), the limitations identified in the more detailed claim listing above encompass the abstract idea of organizing human activity.
Aside from the additional elements identified in Step 2A – Prong 2 below, apparatus claims 14-24 recite similar operations to those identified in claims 1-13 and, thus, these claims also recite the abstract ideas identified above.
2A – Prong 2: Integrated into a Practical Application?
No – The judicial exception(s) is/are not integrated into a practical application.
The dependent claims include the additional elements of the independent claims.
Claims 1-13 recite that the method is computer-based (in the preamble).
Claims 14-24 include a computer-based system comprising one or more hardware processors; and a memory storing computer code that, when executed by the one or more hardware processors, causes the computer-based system to perform the disclosed operations.
Independent claims 1 and 14 recite generating a main dashboard for a first entity, the main dashboard including access to a first entity profile, an impact dashboard, and a community dashboard, the impact dashboard including a list of posts by the first entity involving one or more particular social causes, the community dashboard including a list of posts by friends of the first entity; and publishing the first post to a network of entities, the publishing the first post including adding the first post to the impact dashboard of the first entity and to the community dashboards of the network of entities; and monitoring for one or more social impact events descendant from the first post by a second entity via a particular community presentation of the second entity.
Independent claims 1 and 14 recite that the first impact metric and the second impact metric are published on the social media platform. This is an example of a general link to a field of use (e.g., a social media platform) and a general application of an implied display processing element to present information.
Independent claims 1 and 14 recite providing a posting interface to the first entity, the posting interface enabling the first entity to generate a first post pertaining to the first social cause, the posting interface including at least one first field to enable the first entity to include in the first post one or more links to one or more of a donation opportunity to a first subject entity associated with the first social cause, a volunteering opportunity associated with the first social cause, or a learning opportunity about the first social cause; and providing a communications interface to enable each of the at least one subject entity to identify target entities based on their impact metrics as to the first social cause and to communicate with the target entities through the social networking platform. The interface is simply a general-purpose processing element that facilitates communications at a high level.
Claims 1 and 14 recite electronically correlating the one or more social impact events with the machine-generated lineage identifier corresponding to the first post.
The claims as a whole merely describe how to generally “apply” the abstract idea(s) in a computer environment. The claimed processing elements are recited at a high level of generality and are merely invoked as a tool to perform the abstract idea(s). Simply implementing the abstract idea(s) on a general-purpose processor is not a practical application of the abstract idea(s); Applicant’s specification does not explicitly describe the additional elements, thereby implying that the claimed additional elements are, at best, simply implemented using general-purpose processing elements and other generic components. The specification describes a social network platform. Even if read into the claims as the intended environment, the additional elements are recited at a high level of generality and amount to no more than a general link to technology and to a technological environment.
The use of a processor/processing elements (e.g., as recited in all of the claims) facilitates generic processor operations. The use of a memory or machine-readable media with executable instructions (e.g., as recited in the apparatus claims) facilitates generic processor operations.
The additional elements are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as generic processing elements performing generic computer functions) such that the incorporation of the additional processing elements amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception(s) using generic computer components. There is no indication in the Specification that the steps/functions of the claims require any inventive programming or necessitate any specialized or other inventive computer components (i.e., the steps/functions of the claims may be implemented using capabilities of general-purpose computer components). Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims are directed to an abstract idea(s).
The processing components presented in the claims simply utilize the capabilities of a general-purpose computer and are, thus, merely tools to implement the abstract idea(s). As seen in MPEP § 2106.05(a)(I) and § 2106.05(f)(2), the court found that accelerating a process when the increased speed solely comes from the capabilities of a general-purpose computer is not sufficient to show an improvement in computer-functionality and it amounts to a mere invocation of computers or machinery as a tool to perform an existing process (see FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Sys., 839 F.3d 1089, 1095, 120 USPQ2d 1293, 1296 (Fed. Cir. 2016)).
There is no transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing recited in the claims.
Additionally, even when considering the operations of the additional elements as an ordered combination, the ordered combination does not amount to significantly more than what is present in the claims when each operation is considered separately.
2B: Claim(s) Provide(s) an Inventive Concept?
No – The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception(s). As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea(s) into a practical application, the use of the additional elements to perform the steps identified in Step 2A – Prong 1 above amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exceptions using a generic computer component(s). Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component(s) cannot provide an inventive concept. The claims are not patent eligible.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-24 are allowed over the prior art of record. The claims remain rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 and 35 U.S.C. § 112(a).
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Bogaard et al. (US 2020/0357080) in view of Lovell et al. (US 2018/0075393) in view of Jordan et al. (US 2014/0372204) in view of Galliani (US 2013/0006882) most closely address the various concepts recited in each of the independent claims, as seen in the last art rejection of claims 1 and 14 in the Office action dated November 17, 2025.
The aforementioned references do not address all of the claimed details regarding the storage of the first post in a tracking database in association with a lineage identifier corresponding to the first post and use of this information as specifically described throughout the claims. Regarding the use of a lineage identifier to track content, Tu et al. (US 2020/0218770) discloses that created content is identified with source identifiers and associated with feedback (Tu: ¶ 41). However, the Examiner finds that one of ordinary skill in the art prior to Applicant’s invention would not have, in light of the teachings of the aforementioned references, found it obvious to create the claimed invention with the level of detail and specific manner of integration of operations as they are presented in each of the independent claims. Therefore, claims 1-24 are deemed to be allowable over the prior art of record.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SUSANNA M DIAZ whose telephone number is (571)272-6733. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8 am-4:30 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, Brian Epstein can be reached at (571) 270-5389. 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.
/SUSANNA M. DIAZ/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3625A
Prosecution Insights