DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Procedural Summary
This is responsive to the claims filed 02/13/2024.
Claims 1-19 are pending.
Applicant’s IDS submission is acknowledged and provided herewith.
The Drawings filed on 02/13/2024 are noted.
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 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 8 to 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or, for pre-AIA , the applicant regards as the invention.
Claims 8 to 14 recite various elements which are claimed not in terms of their structures, but in terms of their functions. Such an approach is explicitly permitted by 35 USC 112(f), which states:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
However, the quid pro quo for the convenience of employing this claiming technique is that the corresponding structure for each such element must be clearly linked or associated to the function recited, so that the element may be construed in the manner specified by the statute. When a clear link or association is not present, it is impossible to determine the metes and bounds of the claim containing the element, and the claim therefore fails to satisfy the requirement of 35 USC 112(b) that an invention must be particularly pointed out and distinctly claimed. See MPEP 2181.
The following claim elements are limitations that invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) paragraph because a skilled artisan would conclude that they are so devoid of structure that the drafter constructively engaged in means-plus-function claiming (for example, by using “means” or a nonce term that is not an art-recognized name of a structure of class of structures in conjunction with functional language):
“first acquiring module” as recited in claim 8;
“second acquiring module” as recited in claim 8;
“splitting module” as recited in claims 8 to 13;
“transmission module” as recited in claims 8 and 12;
“first determining module” as recited in claim 10; and
“second determining module” as recited in claims 12 and 14; and
any other claimed “module” in conjunction with functional language that may have been inadvertently omitted from the list above.
However, for each element listed above, the written description fails to clearly link or associate the disclosed structure, material, or acts to the claimed function such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or act performs the claimed function. For example, although Figs. 8, 9, and 10, and the accompanying text describe the various “modules,” these modules amount to mere “black box” elements and are not sufficient to support the invocations of 35 USC 112(f) because there must be some explanation of how each specific component performs its respective claimed function (such as by describing a specific algorithm in conjunction with a general-purpose processor). See MPEP 2181. Consequently, each claim containing an element listed above fails to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
For each claim and each limitation listed above, Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f); or
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links or associates the corresponding structure, material, or acts to the claimed function without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) State on the record where the corresponding structure, material, or acts are set forth in the written description of the specification and linked or associated to the claimed function.
For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Note: Applicant is respectfully reminded that a trivial amendment (such as replacing the word “module” with an equally non-structural term such as “unit” or “device”) would not be sufficient to prevent the claims from being interpreted under 35 USC 112(f). Furthermore, for a computer-implemented invention, examples of “corresponding structure” include a specific arrangement of circuitry or a specific algorithm running on a general-purpose processor. Merely referencing a specialized computer (e.g., a “bank computer”), some undefined component of a computer system (e.g., an “access control manager”), “logic,” “code,” or elements that are essentially a black box designed to perform the recited function, will not be sufficient because there must be some explanation of how the computer or the computer component performs the claimed function. See MPEP 2181.
Additionally, the examiner notes that claims 8-14 have been interpreted as “machines” at least because of the invocations of 35 USC 112(f) described above. Should applicant choose to amend the claims so that they no longer invoke 35 USC 112(f), the examiner recommends including an explicit recitation of computer hardware (such as “a microprocessor and memory”), so as to preclude a rejection under 35 USC 101.
Any claim not specifically addressed above is rejected for inheriting the deficiencies of a parent claim.
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 to 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter because the claim(s) as a whole, considering all claim elements both individually and in combination, do not amount to significantly more than an abstract idea. Each of Claims 1 to 19 has been analyzed to determine whether it is directed to any judicial exceptions.
The examiner follows the two step-analysis, as described in MPEP 2106 (available at https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s2106.html). The following diagram is an overview of the steps involved.
PNG
media_image1.png
930
645
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Step 1
Step 1 of the two step-analysis considers whether the claims fall into one of the four statutory categories of invention such as a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. The instant invention claims an information processing device, and a non-transitory computer readable recording medium in Claims 1 to 19. As such, the claimed invention falls into the broad statutory categories of invention. However, claims that fall within one of the four statutory categories may nevertheless be ineligible if they encompass laws of nature, physical phenomena, or abstract ideas.
Step 2A
Step 2A has been further divided into two prongs as shown in the following diagram.
PNG
media_image2.png
681
881
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Step 2A, Prong 1
Under prong 1 of step 2A, the examiner considers whether the claim recites an abstract idea, law of nature or natural phenomenon. The term “abstract idea” is not interpreted as a layperson might. Instead, the term “abstract idea” is interpreted as described in legal opinions by courts.
According to MPEP 2106.04(a):
the Office has set forth an approach to identifying abstract ideas that distills the relevant case law into enumerated groupings of abstract ideas. The enumerated groupings are firmly rooted in Supreme Court precedent as well as Federal Circuit decisions interpreting that precedent, as is explained in MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2). This approach represents a shift from the former case-comparison approach that required examiners to rely on individual judicial cases when determining whether a claim recites an abstract idea. By grouping the abstract ideas, the examiners’ focus has been shifted from relying on individual cases to generally applying the wide body of case law spanning all technologies and claim types.
The enumerated groupings of abstract ideas are defined as:
1) Mathematical concepts – mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations (see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection I);
2) Certain methods of organizing human activity – fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions) (see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection II); and
3) Mental processes – concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) (see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III).
Independent Claim 1 (Currently Amended) (and similarly recited Independent Claim 12) recites the following (with emphasis): “1. A platform for online social interaction comprising:
a central processor configured in connection with a memory, said central processor configured for connection with a user processor of a plurality of user devices;
said central processor comprising a social interaction system configured for the online social interaction between the users of said plurality of user devices, said social interaction system comprising:
a user communication module configured to enable the users of said plurality of user devices to communicate with each other;
a posting module configured to enable the users of said plurality of user devices to post at least one user content package;
a competition module configured to generate at least one created competition;
said competition module comprising a topic selection module configured to automatically select a topic for said at least one created competition by determining a predicted engagement score for said topic according to historical competition data, said historical competition data comprising submission data, voting data, date data, topic data, leaderboard data, and prize data associated with at least one earlier competition;
an artificial intelligence module configured to generate at least one piece of digital content, said at least one piece of digital content based at least in part on said topic;
said predicted engagement score comprising a weighted value of:
a popularity component configured to determine a likely popularity of said topic according to at least said voting data and said topic data;
a volume component configured to determine a likely engagement of said topic according to at least said submission data and said leaderboard data;
said topic selection module further comprising an accuracy component configured to generate accuracy data relative to said predicted engagement score, said accuracy data stored as part of said historical competition data for use by said topic selection module in at least one future created competition;
a reward system configured to reward the users of said plurality of user devices when one of such users completes at least one predetermined condition;
a currency module configured to enable the users of said plurality of user devices to exchange real currency for virtual currency and to exchange virtual currency for real currency;
said virtual currency usable as an entry fee and reward for said created competition; and
said competition module responsive to users initiating the creation of said competition in one of said topics that said user is associated with, any user associated with said topic being eligible to engage in said competition and win at least a portion of said rewards associated with said competition.”
The italicized portions of the claim generally encompasses the abstract idea. For example, the specification recites that the claimed invention is directed to a platform and system for online social interaction, wherein a reward may be conferred upon a user of such system upon the completion of predetermined condition, such as communicating with other users, or participating in and winning generated competitions based on user submitted content. This constitutes an abstract idea which may be viewed, for example, as: managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions), which is one of certain methods of organizing human activity under the 2019 PEG. Therefore, each of the above-identified claims recites an abstract idea.
Further, dependent Claims 2 to 10, and 13 to 19 merely include limitations that either further define the abstract idea (and thus don’t make the abstract idea any less abstract) or amount to no more than generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use because they’re merely incidental or token additions to the claims that do not alter or affect how the process steps are performed.
Step 2A, Prong 2
Under prong 2 of step 2A, the examiner considers whether the additional elements in the claims integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. To do so, the examiner looks to the following exemplary considerations, looking at the elements individually and in combination:
• an additional element reflects an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field;
• an additional element that applies or uses a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition;
• an additional element implements a judicial exception with, or uses a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim;
• an additional element effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; and
• an additional element applies or uses the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
The above-identified abstract idea recited in the Claim is not integrated into a practical application under 2019 PEG because the additional elements either alone or in combination, generally link the use of the above-identified abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. More specifically, the additional elements of storage and controller are generically recited computer elements that do not improve the functioning of a computer, or any other technology or technical field. Nor do these additional elements serve to apply the above-identified abstract idea with, or by use of, a particular machine, effect a transformation or apply or use the above-identified abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use thereof to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. Furthermore, the above-identified generically recited computer elements do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer. For at least these reasons, the abstract idea identified above is not integrated into a practical application under 2019 PEG.
Moreover, the above-identified abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application under 2019 PEG because the claimed method and system merely implements the above-identified abstract idea using for e.g., computer instructions executed by a computer (and/or modules or systems as claimed). In other words, these claims are merely directed to an abstract idea with additional generic computer elements which do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer. Additionally, Applicant’s specification does not include any discussion of how the claimed invention provides a technical improvement realized by these claims over the prior art or any explanation of a technical problem having an unconventional technical solution that is expressed in these claims. That is, like Affinity Labs of Tex. v. DirecTV, LLC, the specification fails to provide sufficient details regarding the manner in which the claimed invention accomplishes any technical improvement or solution. Accordingly, independent Claims 1 to 19 (and their respective dependent claims) are each directed to an abstract idea under 2019 PEG.
Step 2B
Step 2B requires that if the claim(s) encompasses a judicially recognized exception, it must be determined whether the claimed invention recites additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Limitations that are indicative of an inventive concept (aka “significantly more”):
Improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field - see MPEP 2106.05(a)
Applying the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine - see MPEP 2106.05(b)
Effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing - see MPEP 2106.05(c)
Applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception - see MPEP 2106.05(e) and Vanda Memo
Adding a specific limitation other than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field - see MPEP 2106.05(d)
None of Claims 1 to 19 include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea for at least the following reasons. These claims require the additional elements of multiple modules and systems. These additional elements are generically claimed computer components which enable the claimed invention to be conducted by performing the basic functions of: (i) receiving, processing, and storing data, (ii) automating mental tasks and (iii) receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data. The courts have recognized such computer functions as well understood, routine, and conventional functions when claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity. See, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc. , 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); and OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93.
Additionally, taking the claimed elements individually yields no difference from taking them in combination because each element simply performs its respective function as discussed above. In other words, these claims merely apply an abstract idea to a computer and do not (i) improve the performance of the computer itself (as in Bascom and Enfish), or (ii) provide a technical solution to a problem in a technical field (as in DDR). They do not effect a transformation of a particular article to a different state or thing: the underlying computing elements remain the same. Instead, the additional features merely amount to an instruction to apply the abstract idea using generic, functional, and conventional components well-known in the art. Mere instructions to apply an exception using the generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept.
As such, the above-identified additional elements, when viewed as whole, do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Thus, Claims 1 to 19 merely apply an abstract idea to a computer and do not (i) improve the performance of the computer itself (as in Bascom and Enfish), or (ii) provide a technical solution to a problem in a technical field (as in DDR). Therefore, none of the Claims 1 to 19 amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself (Step 2B: NO). Accordingly, Claims 1 to 19 are not patent eligible and rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to abstract ideas implemented on a generic computer in view of the Supreme Court Decision in Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, et al. and the 2019 PEG.
AIA Notice
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1 to 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication 2023/0214868 A1 to Cingolani in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication 2022/0377424 A1 DENG et al.
Regarding Claim 1, Cingolani discloses a platform for online social interaction comprising:
a central processor configured in connection with a memory, said central processor configured for connection with a user processor of a plurality of user devices (paras. [0048] discloses a social interaction system 100 disposed on at least one, and in most instances a plurality of interconnected user devices 10.sub.1 - 10.sub.n. Such user device(s) 10 may comprise, for instance, a smartphone, a laptop, a tablet, a desktop computer, or some other computing device having one or more processors configured to execute computer-readable code and/or instructions); said
central processor comprising a social interaction system configured for the online social interaction between the users of said plurality of user devices (paras. [0048] discloses a social interaction system 100 disposed on at least one, and in most instances a plurality of interconnected user devices 10.sub.1 - 10.sub.n. Such user device(s) 10 may comprise, for instance, a smartphone, a laptop, a tablet, a desktop computer, or some other computing device having one or more processors configured to execute computer-readable code and/or instructions), said social interaction system comprising:
a user communication module configured to enable the users of said plurality of user devices to communicate with each other (paras. [0047] discloses a user communication module 110 configured to enable a user to communicate with other users of the social interaction system 100);
a posting module configured to enable the users of said plurality of user devices to post at least one user content package (paras. [0047] discloses a posting module 120 configured to enable users to post at least one content package to the social interaction system);
a competition module configured to generate at least one created competition (para. [0047] discloses a competition module 140 configured to generate a created competition through which users may compete via the posting of at least one user content package);
said competition module comprising a topic selection module configured to automatically select a topic for said at least one created competition by determining a predicted engagement score for said topic according to historical competition data, said historical competition data comprising submission data, voting data, date data, topic data, leaderboard data, and prize data associated with at least one earlier competition (paras. [0024]-[0026]);
said predicted engagement score comprising a weighted value of:
a popularity component configured to determine a likely popularity of said topic according to at least said voting data and said topic data (paras. [0067]-[0068]);
a volume component configured to determine a likely engagement of said topic according to at least said submission data and said leaderboard data (paras. [0067]-[0068]);
said topic selection module further comprising an accuracy component configured to generate accuracy data relative to said predicted engagement score, said accuracy data stored as part of said historical competition data for use by said topic selection module in at least one future created competition (paras. [0067]-[0068]);
a reward system configured to reward the users of said plurality of user devices when one of such users completes at least one predetermined condition (paras. [0047], [0070]-[0071] discloses a reward system 150 configured to confer at least one reward upon a user upon the completion of a predetermined condition);
a currency module configured to enable the users of said plurality of user devices to exchange real currency for virtual currency and to exchange virtual currency for real currency (para. [0047] discloses a currency component 170 configured to enable users to exchange real currency for virtual currency);
said virtual currency usable as an entry fee and reward for said created competition (paras. [0018], [0061]); and
said competition module responsive to users initiating the creation of said competition in one of said topics that said user is associated with, any user associated with said topic being eligible to engage in said competition and win at least a portion of said rewards associated with said competition (paras. [0058]-[0059], [0062]).
Cingolani discloses the invention of Claim 1 but does not explicitly disclose:
an artificial intelligence module configured to generate at least one piece of digital content, said at least one piece of digital content based at least in part on said topic.
In a related invention, DENG discloses a system for providing dynamic digital content. DENG discloses an artificial intelligence module configured to generate at least one piece of digital content, said at least one piece of digital content based at least in part on said topic (figs. 1A-2, paras. [0059]-[0061]). Cingolani discloses a platform for social interaction, comprising a social interaction system configured to provide users with rewards upon the completion of a predetermined condition. DENG discloses dynamically generate or select digital content and transmit the digital content to user communication devices of selected audience. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the Artificial Intelligence features of DENG with the system of Cingolani in order to provide delivery content more seamlessly and more efficiently to the users of the system (See DENG, paras. [0004]-[006]).
Regarding Claim 2, Cingolani discloses the platform of claim 1, wherein said at least one piece of digital content is selected from a list of forms of digital content, the list of forms of digital content comprising videos, digital photographs, and audio recordings (paras. [0051], [0054]).
Regarding Claim 3, Cingolani discloses the platform of claim 1, wherein said competition module comprises a rules segment configured to apply a ruleset to said at least one created competition (paras. [0014], [0022]).
Regarding Claim 4, Cingolani discloses the platform of claim 3, wherein said rules segment comprises a basic rule package, a premium rule package, an event rule package, and a presentation rule package (paras. [0015]-[0016]).
Regarding Claim 5, Cingolani discloses the platform of claim 1, wherein said at least one predetermined condition comprises communication between the users of said plurality of user devices via said user communication module (paras. [0050]-[0051], see also Claim 7).
Regarding Claim 6, Cingolani discloses the platform of claim 1, wherein said at least one predetermined condition comprises the victory of one of the users of said plurality of user devices in said at least one created competition (para. [0030]).
Regarding Claim 7, Cingolani discloses the platform of claim 1, wherein said reward system comprises a reward determination component configured to determine a reward dependent on the completion of said at least one predetermined condition (para. [0030]).
Regarding Claim 8, Cingolani discloses the platform of claim 7, wherein said reward comprises an intangible reward (paras. [0030] - [0032]).
Regarding Claim 9, Cingolani discloses the platform of claim 7, wherein said reward comprises a tangible reward (paras. [0030] - [0032]).
Regarding Claim 10, Cingolani discloses the platform of claim 7, wherein said reward comprises an amount of digital currency (paras. [0030] - [0032]).
Regarding Claim 11, Cingolani discloses the platform of claim 1, wherein said social interaction system further comprises a restriction component configured to apply a restriction window to one of the users of said plurality of user devices after such user meets a predetermined participation timeframe (para. [0035]).
Regarding Claim 12, Cingolani discloses a social interaction system comprising:
a user communication module configured to enable at least one user of said social interaction system to communicate with at least one alternative user thereof (paras. [0047] discloses a user communication module 110 configured to enable a user to communicate with other users of the social interaction system 100);
a posting module configured to enable a user to submit at least one user content package to said social interaction system (paras. [0047] discloses a posting module 120 configured to enable users to post at least one content package to the social interaction system);
a competition module configured to generate at least one created competition, said at least one created competition configured for receipt of a hybrid content package, said hybrid content package comprising said at least one user content package and said at least one piece of digital content (para. [0047] discloses a competition module 140 configured to generate a created competition through which users may compete via the posting of at least one user content package);
said competition module comprising a participation mechanism configured to determine if said user may enter said at least one created competition (paras. [0024]-[0026]);
said competition module further comprising a voting mechanism configured to aggregate votes afforded to said hybrid content package (paras. [0024]-[0026]);
said competition module further comprising a winner selection mechanism configured to identify a winner of said at least one created competition (paras. [0024]-[0026]);
said competition module configured in connection with a reward system, said reward system comprising a reward determination component configured to determine a reward to be conferred upon said winner of said at least one created competition (paras. [0047], [0070]-[0071]);
said competition module further comprising a topic selection module configured to automatically select a topic for said at least one created competition according to a predicted engagement score determined from historical competition data associated with at least one earlier competition (paras. [0024]-[0026]);
said historical competition data comprising submission data, voting data, date data, topic data, leaderboard data, prize data, and accuracy data (paras. [0024]-[0026]);
said predicted engagement score comprising a weighted value of:
a popularity component configured to determine a likely popularity of said topic according to at least said voting data and said topic data (paras. [0067]-[0068]);
a volume component configured to determine a likely engagement of said topic according to at least said submission data and said leaderboard data (paras. [0067]-[0068]);
a freshness component configured to determine the newness of said topic according to at least said leaderboard data and said topic data (paras. [0026], [0068]);
a throwback component configured to determine the ripeness of said topic according to at least said date data, said topic data, and said voting data (paras. [0026], [0068]);
an accuracy component configured to determine accuracy data relative to an earlier predicted engagement score of said at least one earlier competition (paras. [0027], [0069]);
a restriction component configured to apply a restriction window to said at least one user once said at least one user meets a predetermined participation timeframe (paras. [0035], [0076]); and
a currency module configured to enable said at least one user to exchange real currency for virtual currency and virtual currency for real currency (paras. [0009], [0030]-[0032]).
Cingolani discloses the invention of Claim 12 but does not explicitly disclose:
an artificial intelligence module configured to generate at least one piece of digital content; said artificial intelligence module further configured to submit said at least one piece of digital content to said social interaction system.
In a related invention, DENG discloses a system for providing dynamic digital content. DENG discloses an artificial intelligence module configured to generate at least one piece of digital content; said artificial intelligence module further configured to submit said at least one piece of digital content to said social interaction system (figs. 1A-2, paras. [0059]-[0061]). Cingolani discloses a platform for social interaction, comprising a social interaction system configured to provide users with rewards upon the completion of a predetermined condition. DENG discloses dynamically generate or select digital content and transmit the digital content to user communication devices of selected audience. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the Artificial Intelligence features of DENG with the system of Cingolani in order to provide delivery content more seamlessly and more efficiently to the users of the system (See DENG, paras. [0004]-[006]).
Regarding Claim 13, Cingolani discloses the social interaction system of claim 12, wherein said artificial intelligence module relies at least in part on at least one neural network to generate said at least one piece of digital content (DENG, paras. [0095], [0121]).
Regarding Claim 14, Cingolani discloses the social interaction system of claim 12, wherein said competition module is further configured to select said at least one piece of digital content and at least one asset in said at least one user content package such that said competition module generates a collection of content for use in said at least one created competition (paras. [0023], [0054]).
Regarding Claim 15, Cingolani discloses the social interaction system of claim 12, wherein said winner selection mechanism is configured to calculate an aggregate score, said aggregate score defined at least in part by an amount of time taken for said at least one user to complete said at least one created competition and said at least one user’s accuracy in casting said at least one user’s votes (paras. [0066].
Regarding Claim 16, Cingolani discloses the social interaction system of claim 12, wherein said reward system is further configured to confer an intangible reward upon said user upon the occurrence of a predetermined condition, said predetermined condition comprising the user of said user communication module by said user to communicate with said at least one alternative user (paras. [0029], [0031]-[0033]).
Regarding Claim 17, Cingolani discloses the social interaction system of claim 12, wherein said reward comprises one selected from the group consisting of: an intangible reward, a tangible reward, and an amount of virtual currency (paras. [0029], [0031]-[0033]).
Regarding Claim 18, Cingolani discloses the social interaction system of claim 12, wherein said reward system further comprises a leaderboard component configured to rank all users according to an aggregate amount of rewards received (paras. [0033]).
Regarding Claim 19, Cingolani discloses the social interaction system of claim 12, further comprising a distributed ledger component configured to record transactional data on at least one distributed ledger (paras. [0007], [0009], [0032]).
Conclusion
Claims 1 to 19 are examined above.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure and is provided in the Notice of References cited.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHAUNA-KAY HALL whose telephone number is (571)270-1419. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00AM-5:00PM.
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, David Lewis can be reached at (571) 272-7673. 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.
/S.N.H/Examiner, Art Unit 3715 /DAVID L LEWIS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3715