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 .
This office action is in response to communication filed on 3/5/2026.
Claim 14 has been cancelled. Claims 1-13 and 15-21 are presented for examination.
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.
Step 1: Determining that a claim falls within one of the four enumerated categories of patentable subject matter recited in 35 U.S.C. 101 (i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter). (MPEP 2106.03)
Claims 1 and 21 recite tangible system components, thus failing within one of the four category statutory classes; machine.
Step 2A, Prong One: Evaluating whether the claim(s) recite(s) a judicial exception, i.e. whether a law of nature, natural phenomenon, or abstract idea is set forth or described in the claim. (MPEP 2106.04).
Taking claims 1, 20 and 21 as representative:
a plurality of influencers participating in the campaign; monitors the at least one social media platform to identify social media reactions made by a plurality of customers responsive to the social media posts associated with the campaign; wherein, for each social media reaction attributable to each influencer, the at least one awards said influencer a point amount corresponding to a point value assigned to said social media reaction; wherein, for each influencer participating in the campaign, the at least one server calculates a total point amount reflecting all point amounts awarded to said influencer during the campaign; and determines a reward to be awarded to at least one of the plurality of influencers at the conclusion of the campaign based at least in part on the total point amount awarded to each of the plurality of influencers; a potential influencer identification containing information associated with each potential influencer, obtains the information for a plurality of influencers and identifies influencers potentially relevant to the campaign based thereon.
The above limitations of awarding to said influencer a point amount corresponding to a point value assigned to said social media reaction; wherein, for each influencer participating in the campaign, calculates a total point amount reflecting all point amounts awarded to said influencer during the campaign; and determines a reward to be awarded to at least one of the plurality of influencers. These limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover behaviors, business relations and fall within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas under Prong One of Step 2A .
Under Prong Two of Step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test, returning to representative claims 1, 20 and 21 the claims recite a processor, database and server performing generic computer functions and do not add more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. As such, under Prong Two of Step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test, when considered both individually and as a whole, the limitations of claims 1, 20 ad 21 do not indicative of integration into a practical application (Step 2A, Prong Two: NO).
Next, under Step 2B, the claims are analyzed to determine if there are additional claim limitations that individually, or as an ordered combination, ensure that the claim amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of a server and a processor alone and in combination amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components.
Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept.
Regarding the limitation a server, database and a processor for administering campaigns and monitoring it is noted that sending information over a network has been recognized in the courts as being Well Understood Routine and Conventional (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) - i. 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 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); 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).
Therefore, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than a judicial exception and cannot provide an inventive concept. (MPEP 2106.05(d) Well-Understood, Routine, Conventional Activity).
Therefore, claims 1-13 and 15-21 are not patent eligible.
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 1-13 and 15-21 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory anticipated double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,086,837.
Claims 1-13 and 15-21 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory anticipated double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-30 of U.S. Patent No. 11,568,450.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-13 and 15-21 are allowable over prior art of record.
The claims pertain to: A server/campaign administrator server for each social media reaction it awards points that corresponds to the media reaction. In addition, for each detection at a location, it awards points that correspond to that location and then it calculates the total amount by awarding all these different types of points amounts which maximizes the effectiveness of the influencing.
The closest prior art of record teach:
Olson (2014/0081879) describes providing economic compensation to an influencer in response to an action by that influencer. No points are awarded in Olson; Olson is not concerned with creating competition among influencers.
Lore (2008/0051201) is directed to fantasy football by giving a reward to whoever has the most points in a competition by tallying up points and giving a reward to the one with the highest score. Participants compete and are ranked on the basis of point totals accumulated over the course of a season.
Olson in combination with Lore fail to teach: “for each social media reaction attributable to each influencer, the at least one server awards said influencer a point amount corresponding to a point value assigned to said social media reaction”
Kim (KR 1698492 hereinafter Kim) teaches Methods for measuring influence of user in social media, involves obtaining person average exposition number by dissimilar users exposed to contents of specified user by using before extracted factor.
Arnold titled “Influencer Marketing part 1-Who are influencers?” teaches influencer marketing can take many forms from word of mouth, earned media, social media, gamification to public relations by using social media now influencers can reach and impact millions of followers instantly.
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues that the claims are not directed to an abstract idea. The Examiner disagrees with Applicant because the claims, pertain to a business, related problem and solution. Applicant’s specification as filed, on paragraph 0001 discloses “the invention relates to a system for gamifying and rewarding the effective posting of local micro-influencers by tracking the amount of engagement by end users (customers) that is generated by each participating influencer’s social media posts, and providing those influencers with a reward corresponding to their relative influence“. The claims as filed under their broadest reasonable, cover managing behaviors (influencers engagement), advertising, marketing (reward) and fall within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas under Prong One of Step 2A . The claimed interaction between administration server and social media platform containing social media posts are considered as “apply it” as the claims invoke the computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05 (f)(2), under Prong Two of Step 2A.
Applicant argues that claims 20-21 do not claim abstract idea. The Examiner wants to point out the claimed detection of one of the customer at a location, merely recite further abstract limitations that provide no more than simply narrowing the recited abstract idea.
Applicant argues that the additional elements of a server, processor, database and location detection technology are more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. The Examiner disagrees with Applicant because in this case the processor, server, database, location detection technology are performing generic computer functions such as monitoring, calculating, determining, detecting, containing/saving information/data are generic computer functions and there appear to be no technical details in the specification of how the server, processor, database and location detection technology operate beyond their ordinary capacities. Instead, the recitation and disclosure in the specification are simply generic “apply it” use of server, processor, database and location detection technology to accomplish the abstract idea of awarding to said influencer a point amount corresponding to a point value assigned to said social media reaction; wherein, for each influencer participating in the campaign, calculates a total point amount reflecting all point amounts awarded to said influencer during the campaign; and determines a reward to be awarded to at least one of the plurality of influencers.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Point of contact
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RAQUEL ALVAREZ whose telephone number is (571)272-6715. The examiner can normally be reached Mondays thru Thursdays 8:30-6:30.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ilana Spar can be reached at 571-270-7537. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/RAQUEL ALVAREZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3621
Prosecution Insights