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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
This communication is in response to the amendment filed on 05/13/2026 for the application No. 18/598,690. Claims 43-60 are currently pending and have been examined. Claims 43-60 have been rejected as follow
.
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 43-60 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claims 43-60 are not compliant with 101, according with the last “2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance” (2019 PEG), published in the MPEP 2103 through 2106.07(c). The Examiner’s analysis is presented below in all the claims.
Claim 43: Step 1 of 2019 PGE, does the claim fall within a Statutory Category? Yes. The claim recites a method.
Step 2A - Prong 1: Is a Judicial Exception recited in the claim? Yes. The claim recites the limitations of “a) monitoring actions of a first user … that relate to one or more other users …; c) dynamically generating an incentive to control the first user by suggesting activities for the first user to perform, … and d) reducing the level of influence of the first user according to a type of activity and a time duration of inactivity of the first user .”
The “monitoring, generating and reducing” limitations, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations as certain methods of organizing human activity, advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors. The method for increasing revenue of a provider. Thus, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A - Prong 2: Integrated into a Practical Application? No. The claim recites additional limitations, such as, “b) display a level of influence of the first user, …comprising the first user and the one or more other users, according to the actions of a first user; “ These are limitations toward accessing or receiving or displaying data (gathering data).
The Examiner analyses other supplementary elements in the claim in view of the instant disclosure:
“executing, at a host system comprising a processor and memory, a computer application , to a graphical user interface (GUI) of each mobile device of a plurality of users , of the computer application, via a selection on the GUI, to increase the level of influence of the first user; with respect to the computer application; wherein the level of influence is calculated by applying a weighting model that adjusts based on at least a type of action and a recency of the action; wherein the weighting model adjusts the level of influence according to influence levels of followers of the first user and according to whether a media submission of the first user is determined to be helpful by one or more users; wherein the suggested activities comprise at least one of submitting a review, submitting a recommendation, commenting on a media submission of another user, following another user, creating a catalog, or purchasing a product or service after viewing a media submission of another user; and wherein the GUI presents a graphical depiction of an influence trend and categories for which the first user is identified as an expert”. These elements are some computer elements recited in a very generic way, rules of business, considered software and data.
The use of “a graphical user interface (GUI) and a host system comprising a processor and memory“. They are not sufficient to integrate the abstract idea because they merely reflect the use of conventional technology and amount to only generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. MPEP 2106.05(h).
The same list of elements:
“executing, at a host system comprising a processor and memory, a computer application , to a graphical user interface (GUI) of each mobile device of a plurality of users , of the computer application, via a selection on the GUI, to increase the level of influence of the first user; with respect to the computer application; wherein the level of influence is calculated by applying a weighting model that adjusts based on at least a type of action and a recency of the action; wherein the weighting model adjusts the level of influence according to influence levels of followers of the first user and according to whether a media submission of the first user is determined to be helpful by one or more users; wherein the suggested activities comprise at least one of submitting a review, submitting a recommendation, commenting on a media submission of another user, following another user, creating a catalog, or purchasing a product or service after viewing a media submission of another user; and wherein the GUI presents a graphical depiction of an influence trend and categories for which the first user is identified as an expert”, when a claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform a process. The use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. The combination of these additional elements can also be considered no more than mere instructions “to apply” the exception, See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Also the additional elements:
“b) display a level of influence of the first user, …comprising the first user and the one or more other users, according to the actions of a first user; “ These are limitations toward accessing or receiving data. It is merely gathering data can be considered pre-solution and post-solution activity. The Examiner gives the broadest reasonable interpretation to the above elements. They are insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
The claim as a whole does not integrate the method of organizing human activity into a practical application. Thus, the claim is ineligible because is directed to the recited judicial exception (abstract idea).
Step 2B : claim provides an inventive concept? No.
As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the supplementary or additional elements in the claim,
“executing, at a host system comprising a processor and memory, a computer application , to a graphical user interface (GUI) of each mobile device of a plurality of users , of the computer application, via a selection on the GUI, to increase the level of influence of the first user; with respect to the computer application; wherein the level of influence is calculated by applying a weighting model that adjusts based on at least a type of action and a recency of the action; wherein the weighting model adjusts the level of influence according to influence levels of followers of the first user and according to whether a media submission of the first user is determined to be helpful by one or more users; wherein the suggested activities comprise at least one of submitting a review, submitting a recommendation, commenting on a media submission of another user, following another user, creating a catalog, or purchasing a product or service after viewing a media submission of another user; and wherein the GUI presents a graphical depiction of an influence trend and categories for which the first user is identified as an expert”, amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception. i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception using generic hardware, software and data elements cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
Further, additional limitations, such as,
“b) display a level of influence of the first user, …comprising the first user and the one or more other users, according to the actions of a first user; “ were considered to be extra-solution activity in Step 2A, and thus it is re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if it is more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. Again, these are limitations toward accessing or receiving data (gathering data). Accessing or receiving data is very well understood, routine and conventional computer task activity; It represents insignificant extra solution activity. Mere data-gathering step[s] cannot make an otherwise nonstaturory claim statutory In re Grams,888 F.2d 835, 840 (Fed. Cir. 1989) (quoting In re Meyer, 688 F.2d 789, 794 (CCPA 1982)).
Further, the instant specification does not provide any indication that the elements
“executing, at a host system comprising a processor and memory, a computer application , to a graphical user interface (GUI) of each mobile device of a plurality of users , of the computer application, via a selection on the GUI, to increase the level of influence of the first user; with respect to the computer application; wherein the level of influence is calculated by applying a weighting model that adjusts based on at least a type of action and a recency of the action; wherein the weighting model adjusts the level of influence according to influence levels of followers of the first user and according to whether a media submission of the first user is determined to be helpful by one or more users; wherein the suggested activities comprise at least one of submitting a review, submitting a recommendation, commenting on a media submission of another user, following another user, creating a catalog, or purchasing a product or service after viewing a media submission of another user; and wherein the GUI presents a graphical depiction of an influence trend and categories for which the first user is identified as an expert”, were are anything other than generic software and hardware, and the OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); and v. Presenting offers and gathering statistics, OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1362-63, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93; court decisions cited in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) indicate that merely computer receives and sends information over a network and presenting or displaying information, is a well‐understood, routine, conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here).
Accordingly, a conclusion that the “executing, at a host system comprising a processor and memory, a computer application , to a graphical user interface (GUI) of each mobile device of a plurality of users , of the computer application, via a selection on the GUI, to increase the level of influence of the first user; with respect to the computer application; wherein the level of influence is calculated by applying a weighting model that adjusts based on at least a type of action and a recency of the action; wherein the weighting model adjusts the level of influence according to influence levels of followers of the first user and according to whether a media submission of the first user is determined to be helpful by one or more users; wherein the suggested activities comprise at least one of submitting a review, submitting a recommendation, commenting on a media submission of another user, following another user, creating a catalog, or purchasing a product or service after viewing a media submission of another user; and wherein the GUI presents a graphical depiction of an influence trend and categories for which the first user is identified as an expert” limitations (pointed above) are well-understood, routine, conventional activity is supported under Berkheimer Option 2. The claim is ineligible.
Dependent claims 44-60, the claims recite elements such as “wherein an online social network enables the plurality of users to communicate with respect to one or both of a product and a service with one another, and to one or both of shop for and purchase one or both of the product and the service”; “comprising accessing information, via an application program interface (API), relating to one or more of the plurality of users to identify users with a highest level of influence”. These elements do not integrate the system of organizing human activity into a practical application. The claims are ineligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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 43-60 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US PG. Pub. No. 20140222548 (Fagalde) in view of US PG. Pub. No. 20130254192 (Work) and in view of US Patent No. 8478735 (Archambault) and in view of US PG. Pub. No. 20110125550 (Erhart).
As to claim 43, Fagalde discloses a method, comprising:
executing, at a host system comprising a processor and memory,
(Fig. 1 and 2 and associated disclosure)
a computer application for increasing revenue of a provider
(“0025] The present system is advantageous to consumers by providing a platform for word-of-mouth referrals to be communicated such that consumers may receive referrals from people they trust, save money and time shopping, minimize the chances of missing a good deal, and capture the value that spreading the word about their products or services has for the companies…[0026] Important benefits for the companies include: (a) increased sales by sponsoring trends of specific products or users, resulting in a more effective advertising tool that lowers prices without reducing profits [increasing revenue ]…”, paragraphs 25 and 26 and Fig. 2 and associated disclosure) by:
a) monitoring actions of a first user of the computer application that relate to one or more other users of the computer application;
(“0008] Accordingly, there is a need for a tool able to track, drive and reward personal influence in people's purchases [Examiner interprets as actions of the plurality of users] as described herein…”, paragraph 8. See also Figs 2 and 7 and associated disclosure.
“[0055] In one example, Consumer A may be looking for a new tennis racquet and he finds out that a certain store is offering the best price in the city. He goes to the store, buys the new racquet [Examiner interprets as information representative of actions] and "shares the purchase"[Examiner interprets as information representative of actions] via the user interface 16 established in the system 10….”, paragraph 55, and Figs. 1 and 5.
See also user actions, “…The controller 12 may be configured to display the purchase information 20 and/or product information 22 on a user interface 16…”, paragraph 50 and Fig. 1 and “Tell other people or just uses it (shows it)”, in Fig. 4.
“…serving as one or more user interfaces 16 for the controller 12. For example, the one or more controllers 12 may include a graphics subsystem to drive the output mechanism [via the graphical user interface]….”, paragraph 83);
b) displaying a level of influence of the first user, to a graphical user interface (GUI) of each mobile device of a plurality of users comprising the first user and the one or more other users,
(“[0008] Accordingly, there is a need for a tool able to track, drive and reward personal influence in people's purchases as described herein”, paragraph 8.
“…By tracking word-of-mouth referrals, consumer influence may be measured in
terms of sales[Examiner interprets as analysis of the specific actions by the first user] thus allowing businesses to reward each consumer word-of-mouth
contribution according to the generated purchases. Hence, the systems and
methods verify the purchases in a trending match and build trend networks of
consumers that have bought products or services as a result of the referral [Examiner interprets as analysis of the specific actions by the first user].
The systems and methods may generate a trending map or social graph wherein the users are linked to each other in an influencer-influencee relationship [Examiner interprets as analysis of the specific actions by the first user]. The
systems and methods may generate a trending score as an indicator of the level
of influence each user has in a network for any given category in commerce in
terms of resulting influenced purchases…”, paragraphs 9-10, 25, 27-28, 31-32 and 46),
to a graphical user interface (GUI) of each mobile device of a plurality of users (see trending map, paragraphs 17, 24.
“[0043] FIG. 5 is a schematic of a trending network in the form of a trending map”, Fig. 5 and associated disclosure. See also Fig. 7 and associated disclosure);
wherein the level of influence is calculated by applying a weighting model that adjusts [based on at least a type of action and a recency of the action]
(Fagalde teaches type of actions, purchase and referrals, and a weighting model that adjust; “[0052] The trending score 30 is a personal indicator of the consumer's influence in each category of commerce. The trending score 30 allows companies to sponsor endorsements of any consumer, from a celebrity to a common consumer, as the business is able to pay per influenced purchase [type of action]. The controller 12 may generate the trending score 30 by employing various algorithms. For example [weighting model that adjusts ], the controller 12 may be further configured to calculate a weighted dependency 32 associated with the dependency 28, wherein the weighted dependency 32 is based on a degree of dependency between the referral account 26 and the consumer 19, …, and wherein the trending score 30 is based on the weighted dependencies 32 associated with the referral account 26”, paragraph 52 and claim 6),
wherein the weighting model adjusts the level of influence according to influence levels of followers of the first user
(“ The systems and methods may generate a trending map or social graph wherein the users are linked to each other in an influencer-influencee relationship. The systems and methods may generate a trending score as an indicator of the level of influence each user has in a network for any given category in commerce in terms of resulting influenced purchases and calculate the referral rewards earned by the user for sharing products sponsored by participating merchants….”, paragraph 9);
and according to whether a media submission of the first user is determined to be helpful by one or more users;
(Fagalde’s system comprises ” referral data” and “trending score” elements to assess whether a media submission of the first user is determined to be helpful by one or more users, “…The system generates a trending score of the referral source as an indicator of the level of influence each user has in commerce, wherein the trending score measures personal influence in commerce in terms of resulting influenced purchases [Examiner equates a media submission of the first user]. The trending score may be used to distribute referral rewards throughout the system.”, abstract.
“0062] The system may continually update the trend network 42 of verified consumers as more consumers join the trend network 42 by acknowledging their referral source (i.e., referral data 24) and verifying their purchases [Examiner equates a media submission of the first user]. By providing a verified network of customers who have purchased the product, the system 10 allows companies to promote the word-of-mouth referrals by giving specific benefits, economic incentives, or any other kind of reward to their customers”, paragraph 62.
“[0068] In addition, the controller 12 may be configured to generate a referral reward 44 associated with the referral account 26 associated with the received referral data 24, wherein the referral reward 44 is based the dependency 28 associated with the referral account 26. Alternatively, or in addition to, the referral reward 44 may be based on at least one of the incentive 40, the purchase information 20, the product information 22, or a quantity of dependencies 28 associated with the referral account 26. The referral reward 44 may be an suitable reward to a consumer or consumers within a trend network 42…”, paragraph 68 and Figs. 2 and 5);
c) dynamically generating an incentive to control the first user by suggesting activities for the first user to perform, via a selection on the GUI, to increase the level of influence of the first user; and
(“…The system generates a trending score of the referral source as an indicator of the level of influence each user has in commerce, wherein the trending score measures personal influence in commerce in terms of resulting influenced purchases. The trending score may be used to distribute referral rewards throughout the system”, abstract.
“…By tracking word-of-mouth referrals, consumer influence may be measured in
terms of sales[Examiner interprets as analysis of the specific actions by the first user] thus allowing businesses to reward each consumer word-of-mouth
contribution according to the generated purchases. Hence, the systems and
methods verify the purchases in a trending match and build trend networks of
consumers that have bought products or services as a result of the referral [Examiner interprets as analysis of the specific actions by the first user].
The systems and methods may generate a trending map or social graph wherein the users are linked to each other in an influencer-influencee relationship [Examiner interprets as analysis of the specific actions by the first user]. The
systems and methods may generate a trending score as an indicator of the level
of influence each user has in a network for any given category in commerce in
terms of resulting influenced purchases…”, paragraphs 9-10, 25, 27-28, 31-32 and 46.
“[0002] The present subject matter relates generally to an inverse referral system for consumers, specifically, a word-of-mouth marketing system that enables businesses to sponsor word-of-mouth referrals from their customers by incentivizing inverse referrals and rewarding their impact in terms of generated sales”, paragraphs 2, 10, 19 and 20), wherein the suggested activities comprise at least one of submitting a review, submitting a recommendation, commenting on a media submission of another user, following another user, creating a catalog, or purchasing a product or service after viewing a media submission of another user; and
(Fagalde’s system teaches almost all the suggested activities in the claim language, see for example “…The system generates a trending score of the referral source as an indicator of the level of influence each user has in commerce, wherein the trending score measures personal influence in commerce in terms of resulting influenced purchases [Examiner equates submitting a review, submitting a recommendation, commenting on a media submission of another user, following another user]. The trending score may be used to distribute referral rewards throughout the system”, abstract).
d) [reducing the level of influence of the first user according to a type of activity and a time duration of inactivity of the first user with respect to the computer application], wherein the GUI presents a graphical depiction of an influence trend and categories for which the first user is identified [as an expert];
PNG
media_image1.png
510
780
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(Fagalde’s system teaches a graphical influence trend and category, “[0074] In another example, as shown in FIG. 7, a business may offer a 10% referral reward 44 as the incentive 40. The system 10 may charge a 5% transaction fee adding to a total cost of 15% per referred purchase. If Customer C spends $100 and gets a $10 discount, the system 10 distributes the $10 in cash back among the referring trend network such that each of the consumers within the trend network 42 shares a portion of the cash back. Therefore, Customer B may receive $5 in cash back and Customer A may receive $5 in cash back. The system 10 may charge $5 to the business sponsoring the incentive 40”, paragraphs 74-75, and Figs 6 and 7. See also Fig. 2.
“[0076] The system 10 may also measure the influence that each consumer has in terms of influenced sales of a given product and provide a trending score 30 for each consumer in each category of commerce….”, paragraph 76 and Fig. 1).
Although, Fagalde discloses a user interface in Fig. 1 element 16 and Fig. 7 , Fagalde does not expressly disclose:
d) reducing the level of influence of the first user according to a type of activity and a time duration of inactivity of the first user with respect to the computer application, [wherein the GUI presents a graphical depiction of an influence trend and categories for which the first user is identified as an expert].
However, Work discloses
“…various factors may influence the aggregate score [Examiner interprets as for increasing the level of influence of the first user] for an activity indicator 26. For example, in one embodiment, the factors, or measures, that affect the activity indicator 26 may be broken down into the following categories: 1) factors that reflect or indicate influence, 2) factors that reflect or indicate reputation… within a various time period…(see at least paragraphs 167 and 172. See also Figs. 4-5 activity or access indicator 64.
See also, “The access indicator 64 allows a viewer to quickly see how closely connected he or she is to a target, endorsers of the target, and other likely references [Examiner interprets as for increasing or reducing the level of influence]. For example, the social networking system may also be a powerful tool that provides the viewer with trusted access not only to the target, but also to other people who know the target and who would be willing to act as a reference, including people who have publicly endorsed the target, as well as those who have not.”, paragraphs 131, 142 and Table 1.
Further, Work discloses people who are not active in the social network (paragraph 84). “[0089] Using these assumptions and exceptions, various means can be used to derive measures of influence from a user's social networking activity….”, paragraph 89.
“…[0090] To adjust for the first exception discussed above (i.e., users that are not particularly active in the on-line community [inactivity]), scores may not be calculated or reported for users with a number of mutual connections that is below a minimum threshold [Examiner interprets as reducing the level of influence of the first user or the second user based on a time duration of inactivity of the first user or the second user with respect to the communication network or the ecommerce platform]…”, paragraphs 90-91. See also
“…Scores may include weighting to adjust for various factors [Examiner interprets as reducing the level of influence of the first user or the second user…], including : level of seniority (e.g., derived from current and recent titles, organization size and other measures of organizational prestige, and length of time spent in recent levels of seniority); independence (including role and cluster independence); relationships to a searcher (including roles, and degrees and strengths of connections); and endorsements and influence of endorsers…”, paragraphs 60, 92 and 153.
Further, the Examiner notes that “reducing or increasing or reducing level of influence according to…”, is merely criteria or business rules to conduct business. It is plenty disclosed by the prima facie of obviousness established in this case. See at least Work’s system teaches, “…Scores may include weighting to adjust for various factors, including: … length of time spent in recent levels … and endorsements and influence of endorsers. As above, each of these scores may be based recursively on similar scores for each of the endorsers or mutual connections that make up the collective score. Minimum criteria for displaying each score may include: having a minimum level of information required to derive a statistically valid score, having a minimum level of information required to protect user anonymity, and a profiled user's preference for showing or not showing the score”, paragraph 60).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Work’s teaching with the teaching of Fagalde. One would have been motivated to provide functionality to facilitate adjustment of influence or reputation based in type of activity (i.e. users searching for business development candidates, Work paragraph 123) or based on other rules or criteria like “time duration of …”, in order to indicate user level of influence in a social network (see at least Work paragraph 90 and business rules or criteria management Work paragraph 60).
Fagalde does not expressly disclose
according to a type of activity and a time duration of inactivity
However, Archambault discloses
“ According to an aspect, each of the activities is given a weight by type of activity whereby the ranking of the members will be influenced by the type of activity of the members.
According to an aspect, each of the activities is given a weight by the recency of the activity relating to the subject whereby the ranking of the members will be influenced by the recency of the activities of the members relating to the subject”, 2:40-50.
“In an instance, each of the activities is given a weight by type of activity whereby the ranking of the members will be influenced by the type of activity of the members. In another instance, each of the activities is given a weight by the recency of the activity relating to the subject whereby the ranking of the members will be influenced by the recency of the activities…”, 4:62-67.
“ wherein each of the activities is given another weight by recency of the activity relating to the subject whereby the ranking of the members will be influenced by the recency of the activities of the members relating to the subject.”, claim 3.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Archambault’s teaching with the teaching of Fagalde. One would have been motivated to provide functionality to facilitate a weighting model that adjust based on type of action and recency of the action or inactivity in order to support ranking of results( see at least Archambault 4:62-67).
Fagalde does not expressly disclose
First user identified as an expert
However, Erhart discloses
(Erhart teaches “a profile of the potential value and influence of this particular user. With this data, the system can make decisions about routing to a suitable agent, options for self-service, or any other treatment choices made by the contact center…”, abstract
Also , Erhart teaches “[0061] An agent interface 224 is a communication system operable to send action items to contact center agents 228, in the contact center 102. An agent can be a person or other system that is operable to respond to certain questions or requests from a customer. For example, the agent 228 can be a person that has specialized expertise in a topic area, such as technical support….”, paragraph 61 and Fig. 2B.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Erhart’s teaching with the teaching of Fagalde. One would have been motivated to provide functionality to present expertise experience in an interface with a customer in order to add value to a customer’s computer system (see Erhart abstract).
As to claim 44, Fagalde discloses
wherein the network comprises an online social network that enables the plurality of users to communicate with respect to one or both of a product and a service with one another (Figs 4-5 and associated disclosure), and
to one or both of shop for and purchase one or both of the products and the service
(“…[0061] For example, as shown in FIG. 5, Consumer B has an identification code 34 of 11, wherein the first digit indicates that Consumer B is a First Degree dependency from Consumer A. The second digit in the identification code 34 of Consumer B indicates that Consumer B is the first consumer in time to identify Consumer A as the referral source for Consumer B's purchase. Consumer D has an identification code 34 wherein the first digit indicates that Consumer D is a First Degree dependency from Consumer A. The second digit in the identification code 34 of Consumer D indicates that Consumer Dis the third consumer in time to identify Consumer A as the referral source for Consumer D's purchase…”, paragraph 61 and Fig. 5. See also Fig. 4 and 6-7).
As to claim 45, Fagalde discloses
comprising accessing information, via an application program interface, relating to one or more of the plurality of users to identify users of the communication network with a highest level of influence
(“…people's influence in commerce may be measured and rewarded when a consumer's referral is responsible for generating new sales [Examiner interprets as a highest level of influence on the first user to drive engagement]. More specifically, the present invention relates to providing consumers a tool to spread the word-of-mouth referrals online and offline about any given product, place, or business, while at the same time allowing the consumers to acknowledge who or what influenced their purchase decision (i.e., an inverse referral) and earn rewards in the process. By tracking word-of-mouth referrals, consumer influence may be measured in terms of sales thus allowing businesses to reward each consumer [Examiner interprets as a highest level of influence on the first user to drive engagement]…”, paragraph 9.
See also “trending score” Fig. 3 and paragraphs 51-52.
“4. The system of claim 1 wherein the controller is further configured to display the product information on a user interface”, claim 4).
As to claim 46, Fagalde discloses
wherein the one or more actions comprise one or more of the following:
the first user submitting a comment relating to an online submission published by the second user, the first user requesting to be informed of actions of the second user, and the first user performing an action representative of approval of an online submission of the second user
(“…The system may generate a product galaxy as a global community of consumers of a given product or set of products, wherein the system provides consumers the ability to share, comment and engage with their fellow consumers around products, brands or activities related with those products or brands they buy…”, paragraph 27.
See also “[0040] FIG. 2 is a schematic of an example of a consumer interacting with the system”, Fig. 2 and associated disclosure).
As to claim 47, Fagalde discloses
wherein the one or more actions comprise the first user purchasing one or both of a product and a service after the media submission of the second user is sent to the first user, and wherein the media submission of the second user sent to the first user comprises a review of one or both of the product and the service
(see “influencer-influencee relationship”, “shares the purchase” and influence by submitting purchase information, paragraphs 9, 47 and 55.
“...Subsequently, Consumer A meets Consumer B and tells him about this great purchase opportunity [Examiner interprets as review of the one or both of a product and a service]….”, paragraph 55 and Fig. 6 “C tells other people about it (on-line /off-line)”
See also “[0040] FIG. 2 is a schematic of an example of a consumer interacting with the system”, Fig. 2 and associated disclosure. “[0063] For example, the controller 12 may be configured to receive purchase verification data before generating a trend score 30 associated with the referral account 26. The verification data 37 may include at least one of a product bar code, receipt of purchase, bank account statement, product series code, mobile device payment information or redeemed coupon code. Further, the verification data 37 may include authorization from a business associated with the purchase information 20…”, paragraph 63).
As to claim 48, Fagalde discloses
wherein the level of influence of the second user is based, in part, on a number of users following the second user and the level of influence of the followers
(“…the system may also generate a trending score as an indicator of influence in sales for every member of any given trend network [Examiner interprets as a number of users following the second user] associated with the referral account associated with the received referral data…”, see at least paragraph 12. See also number of dependencies and weighted dependency [Examiner interprets as level of influence of the followers], paragraph 13-15.
See also “[0040] FIG. 2 is a schematic of an example of a consumer interacting with the system”, Fig. 2 and associated disclosure. “[0063] For example, the controller 12 may be configured to receive purchase verification data before generating a trend score 30 associated with the referral account 26. The verification data 37 may include at least one of a product bar code, receipt of purchase, bank account statement, product series code, mobile device payment information or redeemed coupon code. Further, the verification data 37 may include authorization from a business associated with the purchase information 20…”, paragraph 63.
See also Fig. 7 and associated disclosure).
As to claim 49, Fagalde discloses
wherein one or more graphical user interfaces display a graphical depiction showing an influence trend
(see trending score 30 [Examiner interprets as level of influence] Fig. 2 and paragraphs 40 and 52).
As to claim 50, Fagalde discloses
wherein the indicator representing the level of influence of the second user comprises a numeric value
(see trending score 30 in Figs. 2 and 3).
As to claim 51, Fagalde discloses
wherein the media submission comprises one or both of a review or a recommendation of one or both of a product and a service
(“…The system may generate a product galaxy as a global community of consumers of a given product or set of products, wherein the system provides consumers the ability to share, comment and engage with their fellow consumers around products, brands or activities related with those products or brands they buy…”, paragraph 27).
As to claim 52, Fagalde discloses
wherein the web page comprises one or more user interface elements for enabling a purchase of one or both of the product and the service
(“[0040] FIG. 2 is a schematic of an example of a consumer interacting with the system”, paragraph 40 and Fig. 2 and associated disclosure.
“… In response to executing the program instructions, the controller 12 is configured to receive a purchase information 20 and a referral data 24 from a consumer 19, wherein the purchase information 20 includes a product information 22, as shown in FIGS. 2 and 4. For example, the referral data 24 may be a name or any identification of a consumer that provided a referral associated with the purchase information 20”, paragraph 48.
Figs 4-5 and associated disclosure).
As to claim 53, Fagalde discloses
wherein the associated indicator comprises a value that indicates increasing influence when others of the plurality of users indicate that the media submission is helpful
(“[0034] A further advantage of the invention is that it provides the means to
make referral information travel faster in commerce, generating benefits for
the consumers as the consumers may more easily learn about best deals and
products' reviews [Examiner interprets includes comments by the second user, and wherein the associated indicator includes a value that indicates increasing influence].
See also “More specifically, the present invention relates to providing consumers a tool to spread the word-of-mouth referrals online and offline about any given product, place, or business, while at the same time allowing the consumers to acknowledge who or what influenced their purchase decision [Examiner interprets as when others of the plurality of users indicate that the comments are helpful ] (i.e., an inverse referral) and earn rewards in the process.
By tracking word-of-mouth referrals, consumer influence may be measured in
terms of sales thus allowing businesses to reward each consumer word-of-mouth contribution according to the generated purchases[Examiner interprets as when others of the plurality of users indicate that the comments are helpful ] …”, paragraph 9).
As to claim 55, Fagalde discloses
generating, for the second user, a level of influence of the second user upon the plurality of users, based upon the analysis and the level of influence of the first user
(see trending score [Examiner interprets as level of influence of the second user as a visible indicator] Fig. 2 and paragraph 40).
As to claim 56, Fagalde does not disclose but Work discloses
providing one or both of the first user and the second user with an opportunity, via a selection of one or more graphical elements of the GUI, for increasing the level of influence of one or both of the first user and the second user;
However, Work discloses
“…various factors may influence the aggregate score [Examiner interprets as for increasing the level of influence of the first user] for an activity indicator 26. For example, in one embodiment, the factors, or measures, that affect the activity indicator 26 may be broken down into the following categories: 1) factors that reflect or indicate influence, 2) factors that reflect or indicate reputation… within a various time period…(see at least paragraphs 167 and 172. See also Figs. 4-5 activity or access indicator 64 in Fig. 4.
See also, “The access indicator 64 allows a viewer to quickly see how closely connected he or she is to a target, endorsers of the target, and other likely references [Examiner interprets as for increasing or reducing the level of influence]. For example, the social networking system may also be a powerful tool that provides the viewer with trusted access not only to the target, but also to other people who know the target and who would be willing to act as a reference, including people who have publicly endorsed the target, as well as those who have not.”, paragraphs 131, 142 and Table 1.
Further, Work discloses people who are not active in the social network (paragraph 84). “[0089] Using these assumptions and exceptions, various means can be used to derive measures of influence from a user's social networking activity….”, paragraph 89.
“…[0090] To adjust for the first exception discussed above (i.e., users that are not particularly active in the on-line community [inactivity]), scores may not be calculated or reported for users with a number of mutual connections that is below a minimum threshold [Examiner interprets as reducing the level of influence of the first user or the second user based on a time duration of inactivity of the first user or the second user with respect to the communication network or the ecommerce platform]…”, paragraphs 90-91. See also
“…Scores may include weighting to adjust for various factors [Examiner interprets as reducing the level of influence of the first user or the second user…], including : level of seniority (e.g., derived from current and recent titles, organization size and other measures of organizational prestige, and length of time spent in recent levels of seniority); independence (including role and cluster independence); relationships to a searcher (including roles, and degrees and strengths of connections); and endorsements and influence of endorsers…”, paragraphs 60, 92 and 153.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art
before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Work’s teaching with the teaching of Fagalde. One would have been motivated to provide functionality to facilitate adjustment of influence or reputation in order to indicate user level of influence in a social network (see Work paragraph 90).
As to claim 57, Fagalde discloses
representing, via one or more graphical user interfaces, the level of influence of the second user as a visible indicator in association with a media submission by the second user, for viewing as part of a web page
(Fig. 1 element 16 and Fig. 7 and associated disclosure) of one or more of the plurality of users (see interactions paragraphs 30, 40, 75 and 80).
As to claim 58, Fagalde discloses
sending the web page representing the media submission of the second user and the associated indicator representing the level of influence of the second user upon the plurality of users for display on the GUI of one or more of the plurality of users
(see at least “[0040] FIG. 2 is a schematic of an example of a consumer interacting with the system [Examiner interprets as web page representing the media submission of the second user and the associated indicator representing the level of influence of the second user upon the plurality of users]”, paragraph 40 and Fig. 2.
“…people's influence in commerce may be measured and rewarded when a consumer's referral is responsible for generating new sales. More specifically, the present invention relates to providing consumers a tool to spread the word-of-mouth referrals online and offline about any given product, place, or business, while at the same time allowing the consumers to acknowledge who or what influenced their purchase decision (i.e., an inverse referral) and earn rewards in the process. By tracking word-of-mouth referrals, consumer influence may be measured in terms of sales thus allowing businesses to reward each consumer…”, paragraph 9 and Fig. 7 and associated disclosure).
As to claim 59, Fagalde discloses
wherein the plurality of user are members of an online social network.
(“[0024] The controller may be configured to generate a trending map or social graph based on the defined dependencies, wherein the trending map is in the form of a dependency tree”, paragraphs 24 and 79).
As to claim 60, Fagalde discloses
wherein the computer application is sponsored by a provider of retail products and the services.
([0064] The method through which the purchase may be verified may include a trending match process, as shown in FIG. 6. For example, the verification process may include the inverse referral linked to a specific purchase of a real product or service. The trending match may be performed by several players, including but not limited to, the product's brand company, store, restaurant, website, payment method provider (e.g. Visa) or any other business. This verification process can take place either after the purchase was made or during the purchase“, paragraph 64).
As to claim 54, Fagalde does not disclose but Erhart discloses
wherein the GUI presents categories about which the first user is considered an expert
(Erhart teaches “a profile of the potential value and influence of this particular user. With this data, the system can make decisions about routing to a suitable agent, options for self-service, or any other treatment choices made by the contact center…”, abstract
Also , Erhart teaches “[0061] An agent interface 224 is a communication system operable to send action items to contact center agents 228, in the contact center 102. An agent can be a person or other system that is operable to respond to certain questions or requests from a customer. For example, the agent 228 can be a person that has specialized expertise in a topic area, such as technical support….”, paragraph 61 and Fig. 2B.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Erhart’s teaching with the teaching of Fagalde. One would have been motivated to provide functionality to present expertise experience in an interface with a customer in order to add value to a customer’s computer system (see Erhart abstract).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's remarks of 5/13/2026 are based on the newly amended claims and such arguments are fully addressed in the present Office Action as featured above.
Applicant argues (remarks 7-10)
Rejections under 35 U.S.C. §103
Claims 43-53 and 55-60 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being allegedly
unpatentable over Fagalde (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2014/0222548) in
view of Work (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2013/0254192) and in view of
Archambault (U.S. Patent No. 8,478,735). Claim 54 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as
being allegedly unpatentable over Fagalde and Work, Archambault and in view of Erhart
The Applicant respectfully traverses this rejection but nevertheless claim 43 has
been amended.
Applicant respectfully traverses the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 because the
cited references, whether considered individually or in combination, fail to render claim…43 as amended obvious.
In response the Examiner asserts that the arguments are moot in light of the above new grounds of rejection. The prior Office action of record did not have possession of the currently amended portion(s) of the claim(s) that the Applicant is currently arguing. Action on these newly amended limitations is contained herein.
Applicant argues (remarks 6-7)
Rejections under 35 U.S.C. §101
Claims 43-60 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is
alleged to be directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
The Applicant respectfully traverses this rejection but nevertheless claim 43 has
been amended.
As amended, the claims are directed to a specific technological implementation for
dynamically computing and presenting influence metrics in a computerized social commerce environment. The claims recite concrete technical operations performed by a
host system comprising processors and memory, including monitoring user actions,
dynamically calculating influence using weighted models, generating behavioral
incentives, reducing influence according to inactivity parameters, and rendering
specialized graphical user interfaces.
The claims are not directed merely to organizing human activity or performing mental processes. Rather, the claims improve computerized social-network systems by
implementing specific machine-based influence calculations and dynamic GUI
generation techniques that cannot practically be performed in the human mind…
The Examiner agrees that the instant application is in compliance with the utility requirement. The Examiner agrees that the claims recite some technology. The additional elements beside the abstract idea are, “executing, at a host system comprising a processor and memory, a computer application , to a graphical user interface (GUI) of each mobile device of a plurality of users , of the computer application, via a selection on the GUI, to increase the level of influence of the first user; with respect to the computer application; wherein the level of influence is calculated by applying a weighting model that adjusts based on at least a type of action and a recency of the action; wherein the weighting model adjusts the level of influence according to influence levels of followers of the first user and according to whether a media submission of the first user is determined to be helpful by one or more users; wherein the suggested activities comprise at least one of submitting a review, submitting a recommendation, commenting on a media submission of another user, following another user, creating a catalog, or purchasing a product or service after viewing a media submission of another user; and wherein the GUI presents a graphical depiction of an influence trend and categories for which the first user is identified as an expert”, but the courts have found that simple performing a process faster or in a computer is not enough to make the claims eligible. Reciting standard computer components, some rules of business and data to run an abstract idea is insufficient. The claims must show a specific improvement to the computer or technical field. The claims must reflect a technical solution to a technical problem. A prima facie of unpatentability has been established in this case.
The specification provides detailed support for these technological improvements.
Fig. 5 illustrates a computer-implemented process flow for generating influence levels,
associating indicators with media submissions, and distributing dynamically generated
web pages through the communication network. Figs. 6 and 7 illustrate specialized GUis
presenting influence indicators and graphical trend analytics.
Accordingly, the claims integrate any alleged abstract idea into a practical
application that improves computerized social-commerce systems and user-interface
technologies. The claims therefore satisfy Step 2A of the Alice framework. Moreover, the
ordered combination of claim elements recites significantly more than any alleged
abstract idea and provides an inventive concept under Step 2B.
In response the Examiner has considered the instant claims in detail each element and as a whole in the detailed analysis to elaborate a prima facie in this case. The Office teaches Examiners to characterize the claims tethered strictly to the claim language. It prevents examiners from oversimplifying the invention into a high-level, ineligible
abstract idea. So, the Examiner advices that any improvement in the claims should be supported by the specification describing the particular improvement. The instant claims do not appear to claim an improvement to the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field, as discussed in MPEP 2106.04(d)(1) and 2106.05(a).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
“Reputation model for B2C e-commerce: A trust flow based on social networks”. IEEE. 2011. This article discloses “Trust and reputation systems enable customers to reliably assess the quality of services and reliability of entities. The aim of reputation system is to let parties rate each other and to help in deciding whether or not to transact with a given party in online environment. In current reputation systems, users have to trust unreliable information sources and anonymous people. There is a need to improve current reputation systems by allowing users to make decision in buying online based on reliable information sources. Therefore, this paper proposes a trust flow through sharing of knowledge and experience in reputation systems by utilizing social networks. This can assist users to access trustworthy information sources by knowing the experience and feedback of their friends in the social networks. This approach will improve the motivation of users for buying online and make the experience more enjoyable.”
Applicants’ amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to M. VICTORIA VANDERHORST whose telephone number is (571)270-3604. The examiner can normally be reached on regular hours from 9:00 AM-4:00 PM ET.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ashraf Waseem can be reached on 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.
/MARIA V VANDERHORST/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3621 7/28/2026
Prosecution Insights