DETAILED ACTION
This final Office action is responsive to Applicant’s amendment filed October 28, 2025. 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 October 28, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101, Applicant submits that the use of a specialized interface that provides various dashboards, as claimed, presents a particular machine (pages 11-12 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.
Applicant makes general assertions that the claims apply the judicial exception in a meaningful way and that the specialized interface is not a mathematical concept, method of organizing human activity, or a mental process (page 12 of Applicant’s response). As explained above and in the rejection, the claims only generally apply the additional elements to the abstract ideas and present a general link to technology. Also, while the Examiner agrees that the recited dashboards themselves are not part of the abstract ideas, aside from a general recitation of the dashboards (which are implied to be electronic displays), a human user could present the type of data presented in the dashboards (e.g., using pen and paper).
Applicant makes similar arguments in support of the assertion that the claims present an inventive concept on pages 12-13 of Applicant’s response. The Examiner maintains her position for the reasons presented above and in the rejection. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exceptions. With respect to integration of the abstract ideas into a practical application, the use of the additional elements to perform the steps identified in Step 2A – Prong 1 amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exceptions using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. The claims are not patent eligible.
Regarding the art rejection, Applicant argues that Bogaard, Lovell, and Jordan do not address the newly-added claim limitations (pages 13-16 of Applicant’s response). The rejection has been revised to specifically address the claim amendments, including incorporation of the Galliani reference to help address the claim amendments.
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, a community presentation, and a cause 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, the cause presentation including a list of the one or more particular social causes associating with 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;
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, 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;
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;
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, a community dashboard, and a cause 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, the cause dashboard including a list of the one or more particular social causes associating with 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.
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, a community dashboard, and a cause 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, the cause dashboard including a list of the one or more particular social causes associating with 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.
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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over 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).
[Claim 1] Bogaard discloses a computer-based 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 (abstract), 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 cause and a second social cause different from the first social cause (¶ 81 – “For example, an API may be provided for commerce sources, non-profit causes, and charities to agree to their participation and provide details to populate the discount engine 156, non-profit cause engine 158, charity incentive engine 160, and influencer reward engine 162. As an illustrative but non-limiting example, suppose an influencer makes a payment transaction, such as eating at a local restaurant and posting about it. If there is no previous information about that particular restaurant stored, the API may be used to query the restaurant, request participation in the reward program, and provide options for the restaurant to provide a discount to the influencer's fans. Of course, in many circumstances a company, non-profit, or charity that knows of the existence of the platform 110 could sign up with the platform 110 and provide such details in advance.”; ¶ 35 – “Examples of non-financial incentives include access to special content prepared by the influencer, special information on the private tastes and preferences of the influencer, opportunities to participate and contribute to charities or social causes of the influencer, or other benefits.” There may be multiple social causes.);
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 enabling 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 (¶ 163 – “…Users would scroll through a feed made available by another social network platform (such as, for example, Instagram™) and view the exemplary platform's exemplary Influencer User's Post. In such an embodiment, the exemplary platform could track exemplary User's view of the exemplary Influencer User's Post using a hyperlink (such as, for example, a short link) associated with the Influencer's Post. In some exemplary embodiments, an exemplary Influencer would post an image along with a short link. An exemplary Fan could click (such as, for example, through a tap on a mobile device screen or by using the keypad or mouse on a traditional computer device) on the exemplary short link. In one exemplary embodiment, when clicked, the exemplary short link could load a website built and provided by the exemplary platform.”);
publishing the first post to a network of entities (¶¶ 40, 50, 75; ¶ 49 – "…the influence scores it generates are more reliable indicators of influence in terms of the ability of an influencer to influence their fans to purchase goods, purchase services, make donations to charity, or make contributions to non-profit causes. This can also be further refined into a variety of very specific influence scores for ability to influence fans to purchase particular classes of goods, services, charitable contributions to particular types of charities, and donations to particular types of non-profits.”; ¶ 67 – A particular new restaurant may be a particular social cause of the various types of social causes disclosed; ¶ 68 – “The concept of tiered tracking can be extended to track all influencers in “tracked chain” of influence. For example, there could be Influencer A in Los Angeles, who is gourmet with 1,000 follower. One of Influencer A's fans may be a local celebrity (Influencer B) in Los Angeles with 100,000 followers. However, that Influencer B may, in turn, have a fan who has 10,000,000 followers (Influencer C).”);
storing the first post in a tracking database (¶ 44 – “An influencer profile module 146 may store profile information for an influencer. This may include, for example, general profile information and also a profile of their posting behavior, interaction with fans, payment transactions, etc.”; ¶¶ 48, 137, 157, 167, 170, 175);
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 (¶¶ 70, 74, 79, 82, 160, 175 – The electronic platform tracks the rewards for subsequent redemption, thereby implying that the reward data is stored; ¶ 49 – “…the influence scores it generates are more reliable indicators of influence in terms of the ability of an influencer to influence their fans to purchase goods, purchase services, make donations to charity, or make contributions to non-profit causes. This can also be further refined into a variety of very specific influence scores for ability to influence fans to purchase particular classes of goods, services, charitable contributions to particular types of charities, and donations to particular types of non-profits.”; ¶ 44 – “An influencer profile module 146 may store profile information for an influencer. This may include, for example, general profile information and also a profile of their posting behavior, interaction with fans, payment transactions, etc.”; ¶ 67 – A particular new restaurant may be a particular social cause of the various types of social causes disclosed; ¶ 68 – “The concept of tiered tracking can be extended to track all influencers in “tracked chain” of influence. For example, there could be Influencer A in Los Angeles, who is gourmet with 1,000 follower. One of Influencer A's fans may be a local celebrity (Influencer B) in Los Angeles with 100,000 followers. However, that Influencer B may, in turn, have a fan who has 10,000,000 followers (Influencer C).”);
monitoring for one or more social impact events descendant from the first post by a second entity, the second entity being an entity of the network of entities or an entity descendent 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 (¶¶ 50-60; ¶¶ 67-70, 74 – A user may receive a reward for him/herself and/or a portion of a reward from a chain of influence. Also, the first and second reward may be a reward related to the same post/action; ¶ 68 – There may be a chain of influencers, including at least Influencers A, B, and C. “The concept of tiered tracking can be extended to track all influencers in “tracked chain” of influence. For example, there could be Influencer A in Los Angeles, who is gourmet with 1,000 follower. One of Influencer A's fans may be a local celebrity (Influencer B) in Los Angeles with 100,000 followers. However, that Influencer B may, in turn, have a fan who has 10,000,000 followers (Influencer C).”; ¶ 67 – A particular new restaurant may be a particular social cause of the various types of social causes disclosed. Visiting the new statement based on shared posts reflects an interaction event and/or a sharing-of-a-post event);
storing social impact event information identifying the one or more social impact events by the second entity in the tracking database (¶¶ 70, 74, 79, 82, 160, 175 – The electronic platform tracks the rewards for subsequent redemption, thereby implying that the reward data is stored; ¶¶ 67-70, 74 – A user may receive a reward for him/herself and/or a portion of a reward from a chain of influence. Also, the first and second reward may be a reward related to the same post/action; ¶ 68 – There may be a chain of influencers, including at least Influencers A, B, and C; ¶ 44 – “An influencer profile module 146 may store profile information for an influencer. This may include, for example, general profile information and also a profile of their posting behavior, interaction with fans, payment transactions, etc.”);
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 (¶¶ 70, 74, 79, 82, 160, 175 – The electronic platform tracks the rewards for subsequent redemption, thereby implying that the reward data is stored; ¶¶ 67-70, 74 – A user may receive a reward for him/herself and/or a portion of a reward from a chain of influence. Also, the first and second reward may be a reward related to the same post/action; ¶ 68 – There may be a chain of influencers, including at least Influencers A, B, and C; ¶ 67 – A particular new restaurant may be a particular social cause of the various types of social causes disclosed);
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 (¶¶ 70, 74, 79, 82, 160, 175 – The electronic platform tracks the rewards for subsequent redemption, thereby implying that the reward data is stored; ¶¶ 67-70, 74 – A user may receive a reward for him/herself and/or a portion of a reward from a chain of influence; ¶ 68 – There may be a chain of influencers, including at least Influencers A, B, and C; ¶ 67 – A particular new restaurant may be a particular social cause of the various types of social causes disclosed);
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 (¶¶ 51-60 – A social impact score is based on interactions, including interactions that are associated with how many rewards are earned; ¶ 50 – The factors may be reflective of a cause; ¶ 68 – There may be a chain of influencers, including at least Influencers A, B, and C; ¶ 67 – A particular new restaurant may be a particular social cause of the various types of social causes disclosed);
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 (¶¶ 51-60 – A social impact score is based on interactions, including interactions that are associated with how many rewards are earned; ¶ 50 – The factors may be reflective of a cause; ¶ 68 – There may be a chain of influencers, including at least Influencers A, B, and C; ¶ 67 – A particular new restaurant may be a particular social cause of the various types of social causes disclosed).
Bogaard does not explicitly disclose:
publishing the first impact metric as to the first social cause on the social networking platform in association with the first entity;
publishing the second social impact metric as to the first social cause on the social networking platform in association with the second entity.
Lovell discloses that a user’s impact score, leadership score, and/or civic engagement rating may be displayed (Lovell: ¶ 128) and credits/points earned by users may be displayed on leaderboards for score comparisons (Lovell: ¶ 133). Lovell states, “This context is referring to one exemplary application/use of the rating/scoring system to facilitate an impact based rewards programs, i.e., the network/web interface 30 integrates gameification and leaderboards to spotlight achievements/progress of users and organization with high scores.” (Lovell: ¶ 134) Information of interest may be displayed on a website within a social networking site (Lovell: ¶ 50). The Examiner submits that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of Applicant’s invention to modify Bogaard to perform the steps of:
publishing the first impact metric as to the first social cause on the social networking platform in association with the first entity;
publishing the second social impact metric as to the first social cause on the social networking platform in association with the second entity
in order to invoke a competitive spirit among users to encourage desirable actions in terms of sharing posts that inspire great social impact (as suggested in ¶ 122 of Lovell). The ability to compare influential users would have specifically been useful to Bogaard since Bogaard’s “platform empowers brands/restaurants/retailers/charities/organizations to proactively identify (through the platform) which artists/Influencers (based upon tracked purchase history, engaged fan data, etc.) are best fits for an individual brand.” (Bogaard: ¶ 83)
Bogaard does not explicitly disclose the posting interface including at least one first field to enable the first user to include in the first post one or more links. However, Jordan discloses a field in an interface for a user to enter link information, as seen in the following excerpts:
[0048] FIGS. 4-5 are modeling diagrams depicting an example graphical interface 400 provided by the social media marketing application 120 for automatically generating tracking code for electronic content published via the social media service 128. The graphical interface 400 can include a target field 402, a post field 404, a link field 406, a link name field 408, an audience field 410, a posting time field 412, a campaign field 414, a metric selection field 415, and a preview field 416.
[0051] The link field 406 can display a URL or other link via which a content source 302 can be accessed via a data network. In some embodiments, the social media marketing application 120 can automatically populate the link field 406. For example, the social media marketing application 120 may select a URL for an entity identified in the target field 402. In other embodiments, the social media marketing application 120 can populate the link field 406 based on one or more inputs to the link field 406 by a user of the social media marketing application 120.
[0053] The link name field 408 can display text that is to be rendered as a hyperlink in the published content item 206' for the link 208 generated by the social media marketing application 120. (Emphasis added)
The Examiner submits that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of Applicant’s invention to modify Bogaard so that the posting interface includes at least one first field to enable the first user to include in the first post one or more links in order to “reduce or eliminate manual interactions with social media applications by analysts or other individuals responsible for tracking the effectiveness of a given marketing campaign” (Jordan: ¶ 25), which would allow more users without programming experience to more easily and conveniently organize and run a marketing campaign (as further suggested throughout ¶ 25 of Jordan).
Bogaard does not explicitly disclose 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. Jordan’s interface additionally allows users to define an audience who can access published content items of a social media service and marketing campaign (Jordan: ¶¶ 48, 54, 71). As discussed above, Lovell identifies more influential users in each of various areas based on various user scores (Lovell: abstract, ¶ 128) and Bogaard describes the desirability of disseminating information via more influential users (Bogaard: ¶ 83). The Examiner submits that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of Applicant’s invention to modify Bogaard to perform the step of 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 so that individuals involved with a marketing campaign can more easily and conveniently focus their marketing efforts on an audience that would more likely maximize the success of the marketing campaign without requiring the individuals to have specific programming experience (as cumulatively suggested in ¶ 83 of Bogaard and in ¶ 25 of Jordan).
Bogaard discloses providing a publishing interface to each of the entities of the network of entities to view and interact with the first post (Bogaard: ¶ 163 – “…Users would scroll through a feed made available by another social network platform (such as, for example, Instagram™) and view the exemplary platform's exemplary Influencer User's Post. In such an embodiment, the exemplary platform could track exemplary User's view of the exemplary Influencer User's Post using a hyperlink (such as, for example, a short link) associated with the Influencer's Post. In some exemplary embodiments, an exemplary Influencer would post an image along with a short link. An exemplary Fan could click (such as, for example, through a tap on a mobile device screen or by using the keypad or mouse on a traditional computer device) on the exemplary short link. In one exemplary embodiment, when clicked, the exemplary short link could load a website built and provided by the exemplary platform.”; ¶¶ 66-69 – networks of fans).
Bogaard does not explicitly disclose:
generating a main dashboard for a first entity, the main dashboard including access to a first entity profile, an impact dashboard, a community dashboard, and a cause 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, the cause dashboard including a list of the one or more particular social causes associating with the first entity;
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; and
monitoring for one or more social impact events descendant from the first post by a second entity via a particular community dashboard of the second entity.
Galliani discloses
generating a main dashboard for a first entity, the main dashboard including access to a first entity profile, an impact dashboard, a community dashboard, and a cause 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, the cause dashboard including a list of the one or more particular social causes associating with the first entity (Example of a main dashboard: ¶ 73 – “FIGS. 1A through 1D illustrate various user interfaces for an application related to promotion via social currency. In some implementations, the user interfaces presented within FIGS. 1A through 1D may represent various initial views a user may access to interact with information items posted within a social networking web site.”; ¶ 80 – “A user may select a MyInformation control 120, in some implementations, to access user account information. For example, much of the information presented upon selection of the MyInformation control 120 may be similar to the information presented in the main panel 104, which as illustrated describes another user of the social networking web site. Upon selection of the MyInformation control 120, in some examples, the user may be provided access to modify information that is publicly presented to users of the social networking web site. In some examples, the user image 110, a user location, and other demographic details may be modified by the user through the MyInformation control 120.”; Example of an impact dashboard: fig. 1A, #138 – Link to User A’s posts; ¶ 82 – “an image 122 associated with user "User A" may be presented in an upper left-hand corner above a user popularity level3 124”; Example of a community dashboard: fig. 1A, #130a, 130b, 130c – Top acquaintances of User A; figs. 1B, 1C, 1D – The thoughts and replies of User A’s acquaintances are presented in an interface.; Example of a cause dashboard – ¶ 204 – “In some implementations, an event may be associated with an event address or an event meeting point (e.g., if the event includes a charitable walk, bus trip, or other travel).”; ¶ 95 – “At the bottom of the main panel 104, in some implementations, the user may be presented with an activity control 132, a private control 134, and an information control 136, each related to the presented user (e.g., User A). For example, upon selection of the activity control 132, the user may be presented with a history of the activity of User A, such as posts initiated by User A, posts approved by User A, posts in which User A is mentioned (e.g., by linking the post to the profile of User A), and events that User A created or registered to attend.”; ¶ 114 – “…an events control 164 may be selected, rather than a thoughts control 162. Upon selection of the events control 164, for example, the first information pane 160a may detail events considered to be potentially of interest to the user.”; fig. 1B, #164 – link to events; ¶ 62 – “Events posted to a private discussion room, in some implementations, may include both private and public events. For example, monthly member meetings may be posted as private events, while a fundraiser for a private charitable organization may be posted as a public event.”);
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 (¶ 61 – “In some implementations, the privacy settings on a discussion room may effect the operation of active and passive re-posting of information. For example, although the discussion room of a private charitable organization may be hierarchically positioned as a sub-room of a charitable topic (e.g., lupus awareness, etc.), the postings within the private discussion room may not be automatically re-posted within the parent discussion room. If, in another example, a user attempts to re-post information posted to a private discussion room, the user may be blocked from doing so based upon privacy settings.”; ¶ 63 – “In some implementations, in addition to a hierarchical collection of discussion rooms, the social networking web site may include one or more news room interfaces where users may present information regarding the activities of a particular discussion room or grouping of discussion rooms (e.g., discussion rooms arranged in a hierarchy, or discussion rooms encompassing an overarching theme).”; ¶ 95 – “At the bottom of the main panel 104, in some implementations, the user may be presented with an activity control 132, a private control 134, and an information control 136, each related to the presented user (e.g., User A). For example, upon selection of the activity control 132, the user may be presented with a history of the activity of User A, such as posts initiated by User A, posts approved by User A, posts in which User A is mentioned (e.g., by linking the post to the profile of User A), and events that User A created or registered to attend.”); and
monitoring for one or more social impact events descendant from the first post by a second entity via a particular community dashboard of the second entity (¶ 143 – “In some implementations, the approval rating of the first post 228 within the Norwegian Elkhound Owners discussion room may have no effect on the ranking of the first post 228 in the discussion forum in which it has been re-posted. For example, should a user re-post the first post 228 to a Shiba Inu Owners forum, the ranking of the first post 228 within that forum may be based upon any approvals or disapprovals received by the first post 228 from within the Shiba Inu Owners forum. Additionally, in the circumstance that the rank of the information contained in the first post 228 is affected by the popularity level of User S, and User S has no established popularity level within the Shiba Inu Owners forum, the ranking of the re-posted information may be adversely affected. In another example, the popularity level of the re-poster within the Shiba Inu Owners forum may, instead or in addition to effecting the originating poster's popularity level, effect the ranking of the information contained in the first post 228.”; ¶ 226 – “In some implementations, upon a re-post operation, two or more users may be credited an approval value. In one example, the user who initiated a response may be credited a first approval value, and the user who initiated the original post may be credited a second approval value. In another example, a post may be re-posted from a location in which it was previously reposted. Further to this example, consider a first post originated by User A in Discussion Room X, and re-posted by User B in Discussion Room Y. Should User C choose to re-post the first post from Discussion Room Y to Discussion Room Z, the user who initiated the first information post (e.g., User A) may be credited a first approval value, and the user who re-posted the information to the Discussion Room Y (e.g., User B) may be credited a second approval value. If two or more users are credited an approval value associated with the re-posting of the first information post, in some implementations, the particular approval value credited to each user may vary depending upon the relationship between each user and the first information post.”; ¶ 94 – “Returning to the main panel 104, a posts control 138, upon selection, in some implementations may provide the user with a listing of recent posts initiated by User A (e.g., discussion room thoughts, events, etc.). The listing of posts, for example, may be similar to the recent thoughts 140 illustrated in the lower portion 108b of the right panel 108.”; ¶¶ 61-62 – The posts and re-posts may be related to charitable topics, including fundraising events.).
Galliani provides an interface with dashboards that facilitate many of the operations performed by Bogaard. The Examiner submits that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of Applicant’s invention to modify Bogaard to perform the steps of:
generating a main dashboard for a first entity, the main dashboard including access to a first entity profile, an impact dashboard, a community dashboard, and a cause 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, the cause dashboard including a list of the one or more particular social causes associating with the first entity;
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; and
monitoring for one or more social impact events descendant from the first post by a second entity via a particular community dashboard of the second entity
in order to present a clean and easily accessible organization of information and operations that Bogaard’s users seek to access, thereby improving the customer service experience and the ability to promote social causes more effectively.
[Claim 2] Bogaard discloses wherein the first entity is an individual (¶¶ 33, 68).
[Claim 3] Bogaard does not explicitly disclose wherein the first entity is a company. Lovell discloses that impact may be attributed to individuals and/or companies (Lovell: ¶ 152) in order to “facilitate the automated documentation and presentation of social action/social achievements/skill development, published or otherwise made public by ‘experts’ and key influencers on particular topics” (Lovell: ¶ 152) be they individuals or companies that specialize in certain topics, goals, etc. (Lovell: ¶ 152) The Examiner submits that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of Applicant’s invention to modify Bogaard wherein the first entity is a company since this would have allowed Bogaard to expand its identification of influencers (as described in ¶ 83 of Bogaard) to influential companies in addition to influential individuals to expand its potential target audience.
[Claim 4] Bogaard discloses identifying a look-alike entity with a similar social impact metric to the first social impact metric of the first entity (¶¶ 66-71, 79 – With the tiered tracking, there is an evaluation of whether or not certain transactions/actions are correlated to the actions of multiple influences by identifying similarities between the transactions/actions which have similar social impact).
[Claim 5] Bogaard discloses 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 (¶ 156 – Posts may be filtered by a geographic location; ¶ 67 – A particular new restaurant may be a particular social cause of the various types of social causes disclosed).
[Claim 6] Bogaard discloses 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 (¶¶ 16, 40, 42, 46, 155-156, 164-165, 172, 182; ¶ 67 – A particular new restaurant may be a particular social cause of the various types of social causes disclosed).
[Claim 7] Bogaard discloses notifying the first entity of the one or more social impact events of the second entity (¶¶ 16, 40, 42, 46, 155-156, 164-165, 172, 182).
[Claim 8] Bogaard discloses 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 (¶¶ 50-64; ¶ 63 – A best influencer may be identified based on certain categories related to an influencer score; ¶ 67 – A particular new restaurant may be a particular social cause of the various types of social causes disclosed).
[Claim 9] Bogaard discloses 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 (¶¶ 50-64 – Sharing posts, e.g., sharing information about a social cause, may be seen as a contribution to learning; ¶ 63 – A best influencer may be identified based on certain categories related to an influencer score; ¶ 67 – A particular new restaurant may be a particular social cause of the various types of social causes disclosed).
[Claim 10] Bogaard discloses 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 (¶¶ 50-64; ¶ 63 – A best influencer may be identified based on certain categories related to an influencer score; ¶ 67 – A particular new restaurant may be a particular social cause of the various types of social causes disclosed). Bogaard does not explicitly disclose that the impact is a volunteering impact. Volunteering is one of the impactful activities for which a user may be evaluated in Lovell (Lovell: ¶ 60) and Lovell’s users are encouraged (including through the use of incentives) to invite friends to join volunteer service projects (Lovell: ¶¶ 78, 105). The Examiner submits that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of Applicant’s invention to modify Bogaard to evaluate the social impact metrics of various entities based on volunteering impact in order to encourage more volunteerism in communities.
[Claim 11] Bogaard discloses 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 (¶¶ 50-64; ¶ 63 – A best influencer may be identified based on certain categories related to an influencer score; ¶ 49-50 – “…the influence scores it generates are more reliable indicators of influence in terms of the ability of an influencer to influence their fans to purchase goods, purchase services, make donations to charity, or make contributions to non-profit causes. This can also be further refined into a variety of very specific influence scores for ability to influence fans to purchase particular classes of goods, services, charitable contributions to particular types of charities, and donations to particular types of non-profits.” (¶ 49); ¶ 67 – A particular new restaurant may be a particular social cause of the various types of social causes disclosed).
[Claim 12] Bogaard discloses 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 (¶¶ 50-64 – Sharing posts, e.g., sharing information about a social cause, may be seen as a contribution to sharing; ¶ 67 – A particular new restaurant may be a particular social cause of the various types of social causes disclosed).
[Claim 13] Bogaard discloses identifying other entities associated with the first social cause (¶¶ 68, 70, 79, 84, 85, 149; ¶ 67 – A particular new restaurant may be a particular social cause of the various types of social causes disclosed).
[Claims 14-24] Claims 14-24 recite limitations already addressed by the rejections of claims 1-13 above; therefore, the same rejections apply. Furthermore, Bogaard discloses 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 (Bogaard: ¶¶ 218-226).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Loh et al. (US 2015/0206254) – Provides statistics related to social activities in a dashboard (¶ 116).
Zawel (US 2015/0363895) – Uses a dashboard to highlight important activities and social comments (¶ 142).
Anima et al. (US 2019/0121518) – Shows posting activity from multiple users (figs. 9, 10).
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to 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