AIA
DETAILED ACTION
Status of claims
Claims 1-20 examined
Inventor Devin Kumar Nath (Houston, TX) Assignee none
PNG
media_image1.png
43
880
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Response to Remarks
Applicant amendment remarks fully considered but unfortunately not fully persuasive.
DP withdrawn due to TD
103 withdrawn
101
As to applicant argument that
PNG
media_image2.png
32
467
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Examiner
Citing a grouping is in fact citing an abstract idea.
Examiner explained that besides the grouping of Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity,
the claims as stated in the NFR p2 are
Collecting info, analyzing it, displaying certain results. Elec. Power Group (CAFC 2016)
and marketing (see claim 1 which begins receiving marketing campaign and then goes on to describe Collecting marketing info, analyzing the marketing info, displaying certain marketing results.
CERTAIN METHODS OF ORGANIZING HUMAN ACTIVITY
Alice clearinghouse via computer
Bilski hedge via computer
Here targeted marketing via computer
The Claims: rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as directed to an abstract idea (Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity) without significantly more.
The claim involves data labels related to organizing human activity, e.g. commercial interaction. Talking up a product. The claims are directed to CERTAIN METHODS OF ORGANIZING HUMAN BEHAVIOR. Paying for endorsement is Organizing Human Behavior, 1) managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people. And endorsement in exchange for a reward, is 2) fundamental economic practice and a commercial interaction. Prior to computers, endorsement was 3) long-standing commercial practice. The additional elements are claimed at a high level of generality. Applicant simply computer implements a business process, solving a business problem not a technical problem.
See NPL: A Complete History of Influencer Marketing”, by Brian Wallace, September 5, 2017 which points out incentives to a person who promotes, provides feedback on a product in a social network. This long standing commercial practice goes back HUNDREDS OF YEARS, although those networks didn’t have computers. Here, the innovative concept is an abstract idea using additional elements which are generic and generally applied, a social network using a ‘computer’. These additional elements do not add significantly more. The claims are directed to CERTAIN METHODS OF ORGANIZING HUMAN BEHAVIOR. “PROMOTING PRODUCT”, paying for endorsement, is Organizing Human Behavior.
https://socialmediaexplorer.com/content-sections/tools-and-tips/complete-history-influencer-marketing-means-future-infographic/
https://blog.ainfluencer.com/history-of-influencer-marketing/
As to applicant argument that
PNG
media_image3.png
94
714
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Examiner
The contrary is illustrated by claim 1 starting, ending, and at every point in between being directed to marketing (see claim 1 which begins receiving marketing campaign and then goes on to describe Collecting marketing info, analyzing the marketing info, displaying certain marketing results.
As to applicant argument that
PNG
media_image4.png
73
598
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Examiner
The limitation Applicant points to is itself explicitly directed to marketing.
Applicant’s statement about endorsement (remarks p12bottom-13top) belie the actual facts -- credit is endorsement for influence.
As to applicant argument that
PNG
media_image5.png
56
361
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Examiner
And yet the actual truth is the similar claims are substantially word for word copies, one of another.
As to applicant argument that
PNG
media_image6.png
53
325
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Examiner
Contrary to Applicant statement, Examiner distinguished the abstract idea from additional elements which here are generic and generally applied.
Applicant statement “showing how every limitation of claim 1 sets forth the abstract idea”. The problem is centered in Applicant not reading the rejection which plainly states that it’s not possible since here some elements are the abstract idea and some are additional elements, here generic and generally applied.
As to applicant argument that
PNG
media_image7.png
29
422
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Examiner
Applicant did not read the rejection which plainly sets out the idea contrary to Applicant assertion.
The elements (remarks p15 bottom) merely invoke generic elements generally applied to Collecting info, analyzing it, displaying certain results. Elec. Power Group (CAFC 2016) for marketing.
As to applicant argument that
PNG
media_image8.png
25
408
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Examiner
Each dependent claim was discussed.
Applicant takes claims 2 and 3 as an example and yet comes to the anomalous results that “these are not counting” And why not counting, according to Attorney? Attorney gives no explanation.
As to applicant argument that
Integrated practical application not discussed
Examiner
False. See NFR p7.
As to applicant argument that
PNG
media_image9.png
55
537
media_image9.png
Greyscale
Examiner
Applicant made no argument in remarks p18. There is just a mention of Bascom and nothing more.
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
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. The claim(s) is/are directed to one or more abstract idea(s). The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea(s).
Step 1: (MPEP 2106.03)
The claims and dependents are directed to statutory classes (1, 18 medium, 19 process). The claims herein are directed to subject matter which would be classified under one of the listed statutory classifications (i.e., 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (hereinafter “PEG”) “PEG” Step 1=Yes).
Step 2A, Prong One: Evaluating whether the claim(s) recite(s) a judicial exception -- law of nature, natural phenomenon, abstract idea. (MPEP 2106.04).
US Serial No. 18816680
EPG
[ A computer program product comprising a non-transitory computer readable medium and program instructions embodied therein, the program instructions being configured to be executable by a processor to cause the processor to perform operations comprising: ]
O receiving marketing campaign data over a network from a campaign originator computing device to establish a marketing campaign, wherein the marketing campaign data identifies one or more keywords and/or images that are targeted by the marketing campaign;
O causing the marketing campaign data to be accessible over a wide area network to a campaign participant computing device;
O receiving content of one or more social media post over the wide area network from the campaign participant computing device, wherein each received social media post includes a digital video file including audio data containing spoken words of the campaign participant recorded by a microphone on the campaign participant computing device and/or a digital image file containing at least one image;
O determining, for each received social media post, whether the social media post includes the identified one or more keywords and/or key phrases in the audio data and/or at least one of the identified one or more images in the [ digital image file ]
O calculating, for the campaign participant using only the social media posts of the campaign participant, a composite score based on a number of the one or more images included in the social media post and the presence of video containing the one or more keywords in the social media post;
O identifying a reward for the campaign participant based on the composite score; and
O crediting an account of the campaign participant with the identified reward
bold = judicial exception [ = apply it ]
Collecting info,
analyzing it,
displaying certain results.
Collecting info, analyzing it, displaying certain results. Elec. Power Group (CAFC 2016)
Independent Claims all similar.
CERTAIN METHODS OF ORGANIZING HUMAN ACTIVITY
Alice clearinghouse via computer
Bilski hedge via computer
Here targeted marketing via computer
The Claims: rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as directed to an abstract idea (Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity) without significantly more.
The claim involves data labels related to organizing human activity, e.g. commercial interaction. Talking up a product. The claims are directed to CERTAIN METHODS OF ORGANIZING HUMAN BEHAVIOR. Paying for endorsement is Organizing Human Behavior, 1) managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people. And endorsement in exchange for a reward, is 2) fundamental economic practice and a commercial interaction. Prior to computers, endorsement was 3) long-standing commercial practice. The additional elements are claimed at a high level of generality. Applicant simply computer implements a business process, solving a business problem not a technical problem.
See NPL: A Complete History of Influencer Marketing”, by Brian Wallace, September 5, 2017 which points out incentives to a person who promotes, provides feedback on a product in a social network. This long standing commercial practice goes back HUNDREDS OF YEARS, although those networks didn’t have computers. Here, the innovative concept is an abstract idea using additional elements which are generic and generally applied, a social network using a ‘computer’. These additional elements do not add significantly more. The claims are directed to CERTAIN METHODS OF ORGANIZING HUMAN BEHAVIOR. “PROMOTING PRODUCT”, paying for endorsement, is Organizing Human Behavior.
https://socialmediaexplorer.com/content-sections/tools-and-tips/complete-history-influencer-marketing-means-future-infographic/
https://blog.ainfluencer.com/history-of-influencer-marketing/
Step 2A, Prong Two: Identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception(s); and then evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether they integrate the exception into a practical application. Prong Two distinguishes claims that are "directed to" the recited judicial exception from claims that are not "directed to" the recited judicial exception. (MPEP 2106.04).
Potentially Allowable Subject Matter
Examiner searched but not yet found art for claim 10-15 17.
They remain
Rejected under 35 USC 101
POC
Pertinent prior art cited by not relied upon:
Neystadt US 20120158476 Online Marketing using rated reviews
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BREFFNI X BAGGOT whose telephone number is (571)272-7154. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8a-10a, 12p-6p.
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.
BREFFNI BAGGOT
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3621
/BREFFNI BAGGOT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3621