DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 4/9/26 has been entered.
Status of the Claims
This office action is submitted in response to the RCE filed on 4/9/26.
Examiner notes that this application was restricted on 10/25/24. In response, Applicant elected claims 21-24.
Examiner further notes that this application is a continuation of 17/339456 (now US Patent No. 11861539), which is a continuation of 16/740149 (now US Patent No. 11062251), which is a continuation of 14/997013 (now US Patent No. 10535029), which claims priority from provisional application 62107285.
Examiner further notes Applicant’s priority date of 1/23/15, which stems from the aforementioned parent applications.
Claims 1-10 have been cancelled.
Claims 11-20 have been withdrawn.
Claims 21 and 29 have been amended.
Therefore, claims 21-30 are currently pending and have been examined.
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 .
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 21-30 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 11861539. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other for the following reasons:
Claim 1 of the '539 patent recites a memory storing instructions that, when executed by at least one hardware processor, implement a software system to continually ingest social media as it is published to one or more social networks during a time period, substantially identical language to the preamble structure of instant claim 21. Claim 1 of the '539 patent further recites a multi-layer processing architecture corresponding to that of instant claim 21: at least one initial data processor performs a layer of processing on the continually ingested social media, including deriving metrics from metrics and unstructured data taken from user messages published to the social media networks, and at least one subsequent data processor, coupled to the output of the initial data processor, performs an additional layer of processing based on the layer of processing by the initial data processor, including monitoring the metrics for subjects and selecting a subject by comparing the metrics to stored conditions. Claim 1 of the '539 patent further recites a user interface displaying, in real time, metric data characterizing the ingested social media alongside an array of control elements usable by the operator to generate control data inputable into the chain of data processors to adjust the processing, with the combining performed based on any control data input by the array of control elements, and claim 11 further recites identifying posts in the user messages associated with the selected subject and displaying them with the associated content. Instant claim 21 is not patentably distinct from these reference claims. Scanning the ingested messages for hashtags corresponding to an entity name and identifying frequently used hashtags as possibly launched media campaigns is an obvious species of the reference claims' monitoring of message-derived metrics for subjects and selecting subjects whose metrics satisfy conditions, a hashtag being one of the claimed subjects and its usage count being one of the derived metrics. Providing control elements usable to specify a given identified subject as not an actual campaign, with the additional layer of processing based on those specifications, is an obvious use of the reference claims' array of control elements, whose control data likewise adjusts the additional layer of processing performed on the identified subjects. Generating and displaying campaign analytics for groups of the messages, rather than sequences of display elements, is an obvious application of the same ingestion, metric-derivation, and subject-selection architecture to an analytics output, as the reference claims already recite displaying metric data characterizing the ingested social media. The amendments to instant claims 21 and 29 have been considered but do not create a patentable distinction for the reasons stated, and no terminal disclaimer has been filed.
Claims 21-30 are also rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-22 of U.S. Patent No. 11062251. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other for the following reasons:
Claim 1 of the '251 patent recites accessing real-time streaming data from an online social network via an API, the streaming data including content of social media messages and their metadata; generating, in response to a user's topic selection, a set of search terms associated with the selected topic; searching the data sources for data items associated with the topic, the data items including metrics associated with the topic and messages referring to the topic; identifying additional topics; correlating the data items and additional data items over a same time period; and displaying the correlated data items in different sections of a display device. Claim 4 of the '251 patent further recites, in response to receiving a user's selection of one of the system-identified additional topics, performing a second search, correlating, and displaying, that is, a second stage of user input directed to system-identified candidate topics, with further processing performed based on that input. Instant claim 21 is not patentably distinct from these reference claims. Collecting content including messages based on search terms, identifying additional terms (hashtags identified as possible campaigns) from the collected data, and displaying the results in an interface having multiple sections tracks the reference claims directly. Identifying the additional topics by scanning the collected messages for frequently used hashtags, rather than from a website directory structure, is an obvious alternative mechanism for discovering topics related to the user's selected entity, drawn from the same collected data the reference claims already gather. And providing the second-stage user input as a specification that a given system-identified candidate is not an actual campaign, with the additional processing based on the specification, is an obvious complement to reference claim 4's second-stage selection of system-identified additional topics that drives further searching and display: selecting which identified candidates to pursue and specifying which identified candidates to exclude are obvious variants of the same user-directed winnowing of system-identified topics. The amendments to instant claims 21 and 29 have been considered but do not create a patentable distinction for the reasons stated, and no terminal disclaimer has been filed.
Claims 21-30 are also rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-15 of U.S. Patent No. 10535029. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other for the following reasons:
Claim 1 of the '029 patent recites receiving a list of dimensions; receiving user input selecting first and second dimensions; searching a plurality of online social networks, via respective APIs accessing real-time streaming data, for data associated with the selected dimensions; generating content and metrics for each dimension, the metrics indicating the total number and rate of messages posted on the social networks in association with each dimension; and displaying the content and metrics on a command center GUI, including a topic graph comprising circles whose diameters indicate the total numbers of messages associated with the respective dimensions across the plural social networks. Claim 9 of the '029 patent further recites identifying a set of messages associated with a term, identifying a set of terms contained in those messages, and displaying a term graph connecting them. Instant claim 21 is not patentably distinct from these reference claims. A hashtag corresponding to an entity name is a dimension within the meaning of the reference claims, and identifying hashtags as possible campaigns based on the number of times the hashtags are used in the messages is an obvious application of the reference claims' generation of message-count metrics for dimensions and identification of terms contained in the collected messages. Generating campaign analytics for groups of messages associated with the identified hashtags and displaying them via an interface is likewise the reference claims' generation and display of per-dimension content and metrics. Instant claim 23's layered circles with diameters varying according to amounts of responses corresponds directly to the reference claims' topic graph circles with diameters indicating message totals. The staged user inputs of instant claim 21, including the specification of identified candidates as not actual campaigns, are an obvious refinement of the reference claims' user selection among the listed dimensions, which likewise controls which subjects the system searches, analyzes, and displays. The amendments to instant claims 21 and 29 have been considered but do not create a patentable distinction for the reasons stated, and no terminal disclaimer has been filed.
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 21-30 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 21-30 are directed to a statutory category of invention. Claim 21 recites an analytics system, and thus falls within the "machine" category. Claims 22-30 depend from claim 21 and likewise fall within the "machine" category. See MPEP 2106.03.
Step 2A, Prong One: Independent claim 21, in part, describes an invention comprising: continually ingesting social media as it is published to one or more social networks during a time period; collecting content from the social media based, at least in part, on a search term of one or more search terms; processing the collected content; scanning the messages for hashtags corresponding to the entity name; identifying some of the hashtags as corresponding to a possibly launched media campaign based, at least in part, on the number of times the hashtags are used in the messages; receiving user input specifying one(s) of the possibly launched media campaign(s) as not an actually launched media campaign; performing an additional layer of processing based, at least in part, on the specification(s); identifying groups of the messages including at least one campaign identifier; and generating campaign analytics for the groups of the messages. As such, the invention is directed to the abstract idea of collecting social media data, processing and analyzing the collected data for hashtags and trends to identify possible media campaigns, incorporating a user's judgment as to which possible campaigns are not actual campaigns, and generating campaign analytics based on the collection, processing, and analysis, which, pursuant to MPEP 2106.04(a), is aptly categorized as a method of organizing human activity (advertising and marketing campaign analysis) and a mental/manual process (data collection, data processing and analysis, and evaluation and judgment regarding which possible campaigns are not actual campaigns, all of which could be performed by a human analyst reviewing social media postings). Therefore, under Step 2A, Prong One, the claims recite a judicial exception.
Next, the aforementioned claims recite additional elements that are associated with the judicial exception, including: providing a data store containing the collected content; displaying an interface; and displaying the generated campaign analytics via an additional interface. Dependent claims 23-24 further disclose displaying messages, layered circles, and image data with the campaign analytics. Dependent claim 27 further discloses the second data processor communicating with the at least one server over the external interface. Dependent claim 28 further discloses displaying analytics on an interface. Examiner understands these limitations to be insignificant extra-solution activity. See Accenture, 728 F.3d 1336, 108 U.S.P.Q.2d 1173 (Fed. Cir. 2013), citing Cf. Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 191-192 (1981) ("[I]nsignificant post-solution activity will not transform an unpatentable principle into a patentable process.").
The aforementioned claims also recite additional elements including a "memory" for storing executable instructions, a "hardware processor" for executing the method, a "software system" implemented by the executed instructions, a "first data processor" and a "second different data processor" for performing the layers of processing, a "data store" for storing content, a "user interface" and an "additional interface" for receiving input and displaying data, and "first control elements" and "additional second control elements" for receiving the user's specifications. Dependent claim 25 further describes a "client" for displaying the interfaces. Dependent claim 26 further describes the client as being a "mobile device or portable user device." Dependent claim 27 further describes at least one "server" comprising an "external interface," the first data processor operating on the server. These limitations are recited at a high level of generality, and appear to be nothing more than generic computer components. The recited control elements, in particular, are generic user interface input elements described solely in terms of what they are used for, without any recitation of how they operate or how the interface itself is technologically implemented or improved. Claims that amount to nothing more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer do not render an abstract idea eligible. Alice Corp., 134 S. Ct. at 2358, 110 USPQ2d at 1983.
Step 2A, Prong Two: Furthermore, looking at the elements individually and in combination, the claims as a whole do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because they fail to: improve the functioning of a computer or a technical field, apply the judicial exception in the treatment or prophylaxis of a disease, apply the judicial exception with a particular machine, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply the judicial exception beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. Rather, the claims merely use a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea(s), and/or add insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, and/or generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment (e.g. computers connected to one or more social media networks).
Step 2B: Next, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements, when considered both individually and as an ordered combination, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Furthermore, looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. Simply put, as noted above, there is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer (or any other technology), and their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation.
Additionally, pursuant to the requirement under Berkheimer, the following citations are provided to demonstrate that the additional elements, identified as extra-solution activity, amount to activities that are well-understood, routine, and conventional. See MPEP 2106.05(d).
Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362; OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network).
Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93.
Outputting/Presenting data to a user. Mayo, 566 U.S. at 79, 101 USPQ2d at 1968; OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1092-93 (Fed. Cir. 2015); MPEP 2106.05(g)(3).
Thus, taken alone and in combination, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea), and are ineligible under 35 USC 101.
Claims 22-24 and 29-30 are dependent on the aforementioned independent claim, and include all the limitations contained therein. These claims do not recite any additional technical elements, and simply disclose additional limitations that further limit the abstract idea with details regarding the content of the campaign analytics, generating types of graphs, the days and time periods the graphs are based on, analyzing image data in the messages, and providing analytics sub-sets for different social networks. Thus, the dependent claims merely provide additional non-structural details that fail to meaningfully limit the claims or the abstract idea(s).
Therefore, claims 21-30 are not drawn to eligible subject matter, as they are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
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 21-22, 25-26, and 28-29 are rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Brumleve (20130304818) in view of Rounthwaite (20040177110).
Claim 21: Brumleve discloses an analytics system to discover media campaign(s) launched via one or more social networks using two stages of user inputs, a first stage of the two stages of user input to identify an entity name, the analytics system to generate metrics corresponding to the launched media campaign(s), the analytics system comprising:
a memory storing instructions that, when executed by at least one hardware processor, implement a software system to continually ingest social media as it is published to the one or more social networks (Paragraph 57; Claim 5. The engines comprise software instructions stored in memory and executed by a processor, and the social media content collection engine continuously retrieves social media content items from the social network in real time) during a time period (Fig. 7; Paragraph 77. The user determines the time period during which the social media content is collected and analyzed) and generate analytics representative of the social media over the time period as the social media is published during the time period (Figs. 13-15 and 17-22. The system generates various analytical charts and graphs based on the social media metrics from the particular time period selected by the user);
the software system further including a first data processor to perform a layer of processing on the continually ingested social media, the layer of processing including collecting content from the social media based, at least in part, on a search term of one or more search terms (Fig. 2 #102; Paragraphs 60-63 and 76-77. The social media content collection engine continuously retrieves social media content in real time based on search terms, time periods, and social media networks selected by the user) and providing a data store containing the collected content (Paragraphs 112-113 and 116. The collected content is maintained in a historical archive of retrieved posts and a significant post index, which feed the subsequent term-discovery analysis);
wherein the collected content includes links to social media accounts and messages published by the social media accounts (Paragraphs 44, 74, and 128. The collected content items include posts and links, significant posts are tweets that contain links or have been re-tweeted, and each post is associated with the author's profile including the author's name and link); and
a second different data processor to perform an additional layer of processing based, at least in part, on the layer of processing by the first data processor (Fig. 2 #104; Paragraphs 56-58. The social media content analysis engine is separate from the social media content collection engine, and the engines can execute on separate hosts each having a dedicated processor), the additional layer of data processing including:
scanning the messages for hashtags corresponding to the entity name (Paragraphs 90-92; Figs. 13-14. The system scans the collected social media content for hashtags and keywords that correspond to the entities entered by the user);
identifying some of the hashtags as corresponding to a possibly launched media campaigns based, at least in part, on the number of times the hashtags are used in the messages (Paragraphs 91-92, 106, and 114-118; Figs. 13-14. The system identifies trending hashtags and related terms in the social media content based on measurements including the number of mentions of the terms in the content, with additional weight given to hashtags);
displaying an interface responsive to a result of the identifying, the interface associated with a second stage of the two stages of user input, the interface including at least two sections comprising: a section listing the possibly launched media campaign(s), the section to display one or more hashtags and one or more corresponding first control elements (Figs. 13-14 and 17; Paragraphs 69-71 and 101. The identified hashtags and their analytics are displayed on an interface together with control elements, including the clickable keywords below the activity diagram that enable and disable each keyword); and an additional section to display any additional hashtags and one or more corresponding additional second control elements (Figs. 13 and 21); wherein user input via the interface comprises the second stage of the two stages of user input, in which the discovery of the media campaign(s) follows the second stage (Figs. 3-4, 13, and 21. The hashtags and their associated analytics are displayed and manipulated after the first stage in which the user inputs the entity names and/or keywords in Figs. 3-4), and
wherein the additional layer of processing further comprising:
identifying groups of the messages including the at least one campaign identifier (Figs. 14 and 20. The system groups the messages associated with each of the different terms and hashtags);
generating campaign analytics for the groups of the messages and displaying the generated campaign analytics via an additional interface (Fig. 21. The terms/hashtags and their associated analytics are displayed on a different interface from the one used to enter the search criteria).
Brumleve does not appear to explicitly disclose a system wherein each first control element of the one or more corresponding first control elements is usable, by the user, to specify a corresponding one of the possibly launched media campaign(s) as not an actually launched media campaign, wherein the user input includes the specification(s), by the user, using the one or more first control elements, and wherein the additional layer of processing is based, at least in part, on the specification(s), by the user, using the one or more corresponding first control elements.
Rounthwaite, however, discloses a system wherein items automatically identified by the system as possibly belonging to a category are displayed to a user with corresponding control elements, wherein each first control element of the one or more corresponding first control elements is usable, by the user, to specify a corresponding one of the possibly identified items as not actually belonging to the identified category (Paragraphs 11, 34, and 40-44; Figs. 1A-1B. Messages identified by the existing filter as possible spam are presented to the user for review rather than being deleted, and each polling message is provided with at least two control elements, including a button or link to vote the message as spam and a button or link to vote the message as not spam, such that the user specifies whether each system-identified item is or is not actually a member of the identified category), and wherein the additional processing is based, at least in part, on the specification(s), by the user, using the control elements (Paragraphs 11, 34, 50, and 59-61; Fig. 2. The user's classifications are compiled in a database and machine learning is applied to the classifications to train an improved filter, and the subsequent processing of incoming message streams is performed by the filter trained on the user's specifications). Rounthwaite further discloses that its user-feedback classification techniques are not limited to electronic mail and can be adapted to electronic messaging of any form (Paragraph 31).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing date of the invention to modify Brumleve's campaign discovery interface to include control elements usable by the user to specify individual system-identified possible campaigns as not actually launched campaigns, and to base the additional layer of processing at least in part on those specifications, as taught by Rounthwaite. One would have been motivated to do this in order to incorporate user correction of false positives into the automated identification process, thereby improving the accuracy of the identified campaigns and the analytics generated for them.
Claim 22: The Brumleve/Rounthwaite combination discloses those limitations cited above.
Brumleve further discloses a system wherein at least some of the generated campaign analytics comprise real-time social media metrics (Paragraphs 100 and 112. Social media data is collected and analyzed in real time, and the results of the analysis are likewise produced in real time).
The rationale for combining Brumleve and Rounthwaite is articulated above and reincorporated herein by reference.
Claims 25-26: The Brumleve/Rounthwaite combination discloses those limitations cited above.
Brumleve further discloses a system wherein the interfaces are displayed on a client, and wherein the client comprises a mobile device or portable user device (Paragraph 58. The interfaces are displayed on a client device, which can be a mobile phone or other portable computing device).
The rationale for combining Brumleve and Rounthwaite is articulated above and reincorporated herein by reference.
Claim 28: The Brumleve/Rounthwaite combination discloses those limitations cited above.
Brumleve further discloses a system wherein the additional interface displays the generated campaign analytics as a function of time (Figs. 13 and 17-18. The analytics are graphically displayed as a function of a period of time).
The rationale for combining Brumleve and Rounthwaite is articulated above and reincorporated herein by reference.
Claim 29: The Brumleve/Rounthwaite combination discloses those limitations cited above.
Brumleve further discloses a system wherein the graph is based, at least in part, on a selected period of time, the selected period of time specified by the user via the additional interface (Fig. 7; Paragraphs 77 and 103. The user selects and adjusts the period of time used for the displayed analytics).
The rationale for combining Brumleve and Rounthwaite is articulated above and reincorporated herein by reference.
Claims 23 and 27 are rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Brumleve (20130304818) in view of Rounthwaite (20040177110), and in further view of Official Notice.
Claim 23: The Brumleve/Rounthwaite combination discloses those limitations cited above.
Brumleve further discloses a system including generating graphs that identify numbers of followers of the social media accounts for different days (Fig. 28; Paragraphs 128, 139, and 144. The cumulative exposure view graphs the summed follower counts of the authors of the posts matching the queried keywords over a period of days, and the follower count of each author is displayed with the author's posts); and
displaying messages in the graphs posted by the social media accounts during associated ones of the different days (Figs. 14-16 and 20; Paragraphs 104 and 145. The system displays the actual messages and images posted by the social media accounts for a particular day or point selected on the graph).
The Brumleve/Rounthwaite combination does not appear to explicitly describe a system further comprising displaying layered circles on the graph during the associated ones of the different days associated with different types of responses to the messages; and varying diameters of the circles according to amounts of the different types of responses to the messages.
In the previous Office action, Official Notice was taken that it is old and well-known to display layered circles on a graph with varying diameters of the circles according to amounts of the different types of responses (i.e., a bubble chart, a visualization tool commonly used to depict data points as filled circles whose sizes are proportional to the magnitudes of the data points). Applicant did not traverse the Examiner's assertion of Official Notice in the reply filed in response to that Office action. Accordingly, the noticed statement is taken to be admitted prior art. See MPEP 2144.03(C).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing date of the invention to present the analytical data of the Brumleve/Rounthwaite combination via bubble charts. One would have been motivated to do this in order to show relationships between different data points through a visual medium.
Claim 27: The Brumleve/Rounthwaite combination discloses those limitations cited above.
Brumleve further discloses the use of one or more servers to execute the method (Paragraphs 58-59. The engines run on hosts including server machines, and each engine has a communication interface enabling the engines to communicate with each other over one or more communication networks), but the Brumleve/Rounthwaite combination does not appear to explicitly describe a system wherein the first data processor operates on at least one server comprising an external interface, and wherein the second data processor communicates with the at least one server over the external interface.
In the previous Office action, Official Notice was taken that it is old and well-known in the art for a server to contain a processor, and for the server to have an external interface (port) that is used to connect to other devices in a wired or wireless manner. Applicant did not traverse the Examiner's assertion of Official Notice in the reply filed in response to that Office action. Accordingly, the noticed statement is taken to be admitted prior art. See MPEP 2144.03(C).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing date of the invention to combine these well-known server features with the system of the Brumleve/Rounthwaite combination, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination, each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. See KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007).
Claim 24 is rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Brumleve (20130304818) in view of Rounthwaite (20040177110), and in further view of Soni (20160140619).
The Brumleve/Rounthwaite combination discloses those limitations cited above.
Brumleve further discloses a system for displaying the image data with the campaign analytics (Fig. 16; Paragraphs 94 and 136. The top trending videos and photos associated with the keywords chosen by the user are displayed together with the analytics data, including the mention, influence, momentum, velocity, and peak metrics).
The Brumleve/Rounthwaite combination does not appear to explicitly describe a system for extracting image data from fonts displayed in the messages.
Soni, however, discloses a system for extracting image data from fonts displayed in the messages (Paragraph 48. The system identifies social media posts that describe a particular brand, and the entity extractor identifies pictures within the posts containing a logo or image associated with the brand).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing date of the invention to combine this feature of Soni with those of the Brumleve/Rounthwaite combination. One would have been motivated to do this in order to provide easily identifiable data that improves user convenience when viewing the analytics data.
Claim 30 is rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Brumleve (20130304818) in view of Rounthwaite (20040177110), and in further view of Holden (9467531).
The Brumleve/Rounthwaite combination discloses those limitations cited above.
Brumleve discloses a system in which a user selects one social media network from a plurality of social media networks for which they would like to see analytics (Figs. 3-4; e.g., Twitter), but the Brumleve/Rounthwaite combination does not appear to explicitly describe a system wherein the one or more social networks comprises plural social networks; and wherein the additional interface includes different sub-sets of the generated campaign analytics for different ones of the plural social networks.
Holden, however, discloses a system wherein the one or more social networks comprises plural social networks, and wherein the additional interface includes different sub-sets of the generated campaign analytics for different ones of the plural social networks (Figs. 12-13; Col. 29, Lines 47-58; Col. 31, Lines 18-33. The dashboard displays campaign analytics for each of a plurality of selectable social media networks, and the campaign reporter tables break out per-network sub-sets of the campaign analytics, with each row identifying the social media network and its associated counts, on a single interface).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing date of the invention to combine this feature of Holden with those of the Brumleve/Rounthwaite combination. One would have been motivated to do this in order to provide a convenient means for displaying analytics for different social media networks on a single screen.
Other Relevant Prior Art
Though not cited in the above rejections, the following references are deemed to be relevant to Applicant’s disclosures:
Jamal et al. (20140214480), directed to a method for determining a customer profile state.
Gurevich et al. (11122009), directed to a method for identifying geographic locations of social media content collected over social networks.
Stoltz et al. (20150154657), directed to a web-based social advertising system.
Panigrahi et al. (20160092837), directed to a method for supplementing job postings with social network data.
Schiffman et al. (10600060), directed to a method for predictive analytics from visual data.
Response to Arguments
Double Patenting
Applicant states that a terminal disclaimer will be submitted when the Examiner has identified potentially allowable claims. Applicant's stated intention to file a terminal disclaimer at a later time is noted, but it does not constitute a terminal disclaimer and does not overcome the rejection. A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d), accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration, remains the appropriate mechanism for overcoming the rejection. The nonstatutory double patenting rejections of claims 21-30 are therefore maintained, and are restated above as separate rejections over each of the three reference patents.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
Applicant's arguments regarding the rejection of claims 21-30 under 35 USC 101 have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
Applicant traverses the rationale set forth in the previous Office action on the ground that the Examiner looked for, and was unable to find, a "known" technological component improved by Applicant's invention. Applicant argues that inventing a new technological component, instead of or in addition to improving a known technological component, is sufficient for eligibility, and that the specification describes new interfaces, new software, and new algorithms, each of which is a "technological component" on its face.
These arguments are not persuasive. The premise of Applicant's traversal, that reciting an assertedly new interface, new software, or new algorithm suffices to confer eligibility, is contrary to controlling authority. The novelty of a claimed technique does not bear on whether the claim is directed to an abstract idea: "[w]e may assume that the techniques claimed are groundbreaking, innovative, or even brilliant, but that is not enough for eligibility." SAP Am., Inc. v. InvestPic, LLC, 898 F.3d 1161, 1163 (Fed. Cir. 2018). Likewise, "a claim for a new abstract idea is still an abstract idea." Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp., 839 F.3d 1138, 1151 (Fed. Cir. 2016). The relevant inquiry under Step 2A, Prong Two is not whether the claimed components are characterized as "new" or "known," but whether the claims recite a specific technical solution that improves the functioning of a computer or another technology or technical field. See MPEP 2106.05(a).
Measured against the claims, the assertedly new components do not supply such an improvement. The claimed "interfaces" and "control elements" are recited solely in terms of the functions they perform and the information they receive and display: an interface displays hashtags and analytics, and a control element is usable to specify a possible campaign as not an actual campaign. The claims recite no implementation details regarding how the interfaces or control elements operate, are structured, or are technologically improved. This stands in contrast to the claims found eligible in Core Wireless and in Data Engine, which recited a specific, structured manner of presenting information that solved an identified technological problem with the devices themselves. See Core Wireless Licensing S.A.R.L. v. LG Elecs., Inc., 880 F.3d 1356, 1362-63 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (specific improvement addressing the inefficiency of navigating small-screen devices); Data Engine Techs. LLC v. Google LLC, 906 F.3d 999, 1008-09 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (specific notebook-tab structure solving a problem in electronic spreadsheet navigation). Here, as in the claims Data Engine found ineligible, the claims are directed at a general level to receiving user input and displaying results without reciting a specific technical solution. Data Engine, 906 F.3d at 1012.
As for the assertedly new "software" and "algorithms," the claimed method of identifying possible campaigns from hashtag frequency, incorporating a user's judgment as to which candidates are not actual campaigns, and generating campaign analytics is the abstract idea itself, as set forth in the rejection above. A new or improved method of performing that analysis is an improvement to the abstract idea, not to a technological field, and does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. See SAP Am., 898 F.3d at 1170; MPEP 2106.05(a).
Applicant further asserts that the burden rests on the Examiner to fully reconsider all remarks and citations included in the June 30, 2025 amendment. All of Applicant's remarks and specification citations have been fully considered. However, the eligibility inquiry must focus on the language of the claims themselves. Synopsys, 839 F.3d at 1149. Even accepting that the specification describes the asserted interfaces, software, and algorithms, the claims do not recite any specific technical implementation of those components beyond the high level of generality addressed in the rejection above, and unclaimed features cannot impart eligibility to the claims.
To the extent Applicant relies on the Kaavo decision referenced during the prior telephonic interview, that decision does not alter the analysis under the controlling Federal Circuit authority discussed above.
Accordingly, Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but are not persuasive. The rejection of claims 21-30 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 is therefore maintained.
Claim Rejections - Prior Art
Applicant's arguments with respect to the prior art rejections of claims 21-30 have been fully considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection set forth above, which were necessitated by Applicant's amendments. The amended claims have been given updated search and consideration, and the amended limitations of claim 21 are addressed by the rejection over Brumleve in view of Rounthwaite.
The Examiner notes, however, that Applicant's characterization of Brumleve's keyword-clicking feature as mere sequential "un-graphing" is incomplete. Brumleve discloses that the Enabled and Isolated options determine which keywords are included in "the analysis of the search result" (Paragraphs 69-71), such that the enable/disable state of the control elements scopes the analysis performed, not merely the display. In any event, the negative-specification limitations added by amendment are addressed by Rounthwaite in the new ground of rejection, as set forth above.
Claim Objections
In view of Applicant's amendment deleting "the" preceding "one or more search terms," the objection to claim 21 set forth in the previous Office action is withdrawn.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER BUSCH whose telephone number is (571)270-7953. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10-7.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Waseem Ashraf can be reached at 571-270-3948. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER C BUSCH/Examiner, Art Unit 3621
Prosecution Insights