DETAILED ACTION
This communication is in response to the amendment/remarks filed 05 September 2025.
Claim 5 has been canceled. Claims 1-4 and 6-25 have been amended.
Claims 1-4 and 6-25 are currently pending.
Claims 1-4 and 6-25 are rejected.
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 .
Response to Amendment/Remarks
The previous claim objections have been remedied by amendment and are withdrawn.
The previous claim interpretations, after amendment, are moot.
The previous rejections under 35 USC § 112 have been remedied by amendment and are withdrawn.
Regarding 35 USC § 101, Applicant’s remarks have been fully considered but are not persuasive. Under Step 2A, Prong One, Applicant argues that “the amended claims no longer merely recite marketing concepts. Instead, they recite specific technical solutions to computing problems encountered in cross-platform video distribution ….” Remarks at 24. Whether the claims provide a technical solution to a technical problem is not part of the analysis in 2A Prong One. At this stage, the question is does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? The present claims do recite an abstract idea as they recite steps for inclusion and sharing of short-form video within referral marketing. The claims recite enabling a user to record or upload a video associated with a referral campaign, generation of a campaign page that includes the video, and transmission of referral messages. These limitations are present in the claims and thus the claims recite an abstract idea including marketing activities.
Under Step 2A, Prong Two, Applicant argues that “the claimed invention improves both: Computer functionality by enabling cross-channel multimedia sharing that would otherwise fail due to platform-specific restrictions. The technical field of digital communication by providing solutions that allow video referrals to be delivered successfully across incompatible protocols.” Remarks at 24-25. At this step of analysis, “the specification should be evaluated to determine if the disclosure provides sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement.” MPEP 2106.04(d)(1). From the specification, it is not clear that the present invention provides such improvements as argued by Applicant. For example, the limitations present in claim 3 which involve compression and generation of a GIF is not an improvement to existing technology -- it is existing technology. Thus, the argument is not persuasive.
Under Step 2B, Applicant argues that the “inventive concept lies in the non-conventional and non-generic arrangement of components … [that are] not routine, well-understood, or conventional operations in isolation or in combination.” Remarks at 25-26. At this step of analysis, it is the additional elements that are considered. In the present claims, the additional elements include the one or more processors and the system. As understood by Examiner, the system and the processor(s) are all present in one system “system.” See the rejection under 112 for the ambiguity that exists around the recited system. The processor and/or system do not exist in a non-generic arrangement, as they are not in any “arrangement” that can be deduced by Examiner. Additionally, when the additional elements are merely generic in nature and do no more than carry out the judicial exception, the steps performed by the additional elements need not be analyzed for their routine, conventional, or well-understood nature. Thus, this argument is not persuasive.
Regarding 35 USC § 101 and the human organisms previously claimed: the claims have removed the recitation of human organisms and thus that portion of the rejection is withdrawn.
Regarding 35 USC § 102/103, the independent claim has been amended to include limitations previously indicated as not being found in the prior art in either a single reference nor an obvious combination of references. Thus, the rejections are withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 2-4, 6-22, and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 2-4, 6-22, and 24 recite “the system” at least once within each claim. The “system” was removed from independent claim 1 and thus there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims.
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 1-4 and 6-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Step 1
Claims 1-4 and 6-25 recite a method which is considered a process.
Step 2A-Prong One
The claims recite the concept of allowing an advocate to create and share a video for the purposes of referral marketing (see “a computer-implemented method executed by one or more processors for inclusion and sharing of short-form video within referral marketing, the method comprising: presenting a graphical user interface configured to enable an advocate to record a video or upload a previously created video file from a mobile or desktop device; receiving, from an advocate device, a video associated with a referral campaign; generating a campaign page that includes the video; and transmitting shareable referral messages by multiple channels including:(i) server-side email,(ii) native email applications,(iii) sharable hyperlink,(iv) SMS messaging, and(v) iMessage messaging; wherein each referral message includes an animated GIF derived from the video together with a clickable link to the campaign page” in claim 1). This concept falls into the certain methods of organizing human activity grouping of abstract ideas including marketing activities.
The mere nominal recitation of a generic computer component does not take the claim limitations out of the abstract idea grouping. Thus, the claims recite an abstract idea
Step 2A-Prong Two
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claims recite the additional element of one or more processors in claims 1-4 and 6-25 and a system in claims 2-4, 6-22, and 24 and includes no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The machine does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Step 2B
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed previously with respect to Step 2A-Prong Two, the additional element in the claim amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The same analysis applies here in Step 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. See MPEP 2106.05(f). The claims do not provide an inventive concept (significantly more than the abstract idea). The claims are ineligible.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 MEREDITH A LONG whose telephone number is (571)272-3196. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 9:30 - 6.
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, Ilana Spar can be reached on 571-270-7537. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of 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.
/MEREDITH A LONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3622