DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
This communication is the final action on the merits in response to the amendments and arguments filed on July 6, 2026. Claims 1-3, 8, and 10-14 were amended. Claim 19 was canceled. Claims 1-18 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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1
Claims 1-10 are directed to a machine. Claims 11-17 are directed to a process. Claim 18 is directed to an article of manufacture. As such, each claim is directed to a statutory category of invention.
Step 2A Prong 1
The examiner has identified independent Claim 1 as the claim that represents the claimed invention for analysis and is similar to independent Claims 11 and 18.
Independent Claim 1 recites the following abstract ideas: “managing creator campaigns: provide a creator campaign; provide a creator campaign content registration including a video platform selection tab for selecting an active channel of a creator and a content search tab for registering a unique address of campaign content; receive, via an entry box of the creator campaign content registration , a remaining portion of the unique address exclusive of a common portion of the unique address associated with the selected active channel; combine the received remaining portion with the common portion to generate a unique content address, and access the campaign content posted by the creator on the active channel based on the generated unique content address; determine whether the creator has completed performing the creator campaign based on the accessed campaign content; and provide a reward to a supporter for the creator who has completed performing the creator campaign.”
The limitations, as drafted, are a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, relates to commercial interactions including advertising / marketing or sales activities or behaviors / business relations (i.e., managing creator campaigns: provide a creator campaign; provide a creator campaign content registration including a video platform selection tab for selecting an active channel of a creator and a content search tab for registering a unique address of campaign content; receive, via an entry box of the creator campaign content registration, a remaining portion of the unique address exclusive of a common portion of the unique address associated with the selected active channel; combine the received remaining portion with the common portion to generate a unique content address, and access the campaign content posted by the creator on the active channel based on the generated unique content address; determine whether the creator has completed performing the creator campaign based on the accessed campaign content; and provide a reward to a supporter for the creator who has completed performing the creator campaign), but for the recitation of generic computer components (i.e., An apparatus comprising memory and a controller, and interface, and a video platform). If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, relates to commercial interactions including advertising / marketing or sales activities or behaviors / business relations, but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas.
Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong 2
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Limitations that are not indicative of integration into a practical application include: (1) Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(f)), (2) Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05(g)), (3) Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (MPEP 2106.05(h)). In particular, the claim recites the additional elements of an apparatus comprising memory and a controller, and interface, and a video platform (in addition to the non-transitory CRM and processor of Claim 18). The computer hardware is recited at a high level of generality (i.e., generic computers transmitting information, generic interface for receiving information, and generic video platform for posting content) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Accordingly, these additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, since they do not involve improvements to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field (MPEP 2106.05(a)), they do not apply the abstract idea with, or by use of, a particular machine (MPEP 2106.05(b)), they do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (MPEP 2106.05(c)), and they do not apply or use the abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking its use to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP 2106.05(e)). Therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea without a practical application.
Step 2B
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, they do not add significantly more (also known as an “inventive concept”) to the exception. The additional elements of using computer hardware (an apparatus comprising memory and a controller (in addition to the non-transitory CRM and processor of Claim 18)) amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. Therefore, the claim is not patent-eligible.
Dependent claims 2-10 and 12-17 do not include any additional elements beyond those identified above. They further define the abstract idea that is present in their respective independent claims and hence are abstract for at least the reasons presented above. As such, they do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, nor are they sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea when considered both individually and as an ordered combination. Thus, the aforementioned claims are not patent-eligible.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-3, 11-13, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Strutton et al. (US-20200027128), Koyfman et al. (US-8849693), and Yu (US-20210326917).
Claim 1 (and Similarly Claims 11 and 18)
Strutton teaches the following limitations:
An apparatus for managing creator campaigns, the apparatus comprising: memory; and a controller configured to: provide a creator campaign ([0034] SRM administrators 206 and SRM users 208 operate on SRM logic 204 and marketing automation program 202 to define campaigns and publish social media posts and messages, which are then viewed by social media users or consumers 210; [0035] As most SRM posts are associated with a campaign or promotion, before creating an SRM post, a campaign must be typically be set up first… once a campaign has been defined at 212, an SRM administrator 206 may use campaign tags 220 to set up the campaign at 218 at the SRM application for which the SRM posts will be associated with);
provide a creator campaign content registration interface including a video platform selection tab for selecting an active channel of a creator and a content search tab for registering a unique address of campaign content ([0068] a user may use a UI 402-1 at a publishing interface 402 to create a post or social media message. Publishing interface 402 may be used to retrieve content assets 404 (e.g., pictures 404-1, videos 404-2, or text 404-3) to include as part of the post or message. In addition, publishing interface 402 may be used to retrieve one or more tracking URL templates and one or more tags 402-2, wherein the templates and tags correspond to a campaign structure generated by marketing automation application 406. Thus, posts created using publishing interface 402 can be associated with a particular campaign or promotion. The retrieved campaign tags 402-2 may include campaign name, ID, description, and/or other campaign properties. In addition to tags retrieved from marketing automation application 406, the user may also choose to define one or more custom parameters to be associated with the post. These tags and parameters may then be used with the retrieved tracking URL templates to construct a tracking URL; [0069] The retrieved content and tags are combined with user-inputted data at UI 402-1 to form a published post or message 408 one or more social media platforms (e.g., Facebook, Twitter, etc.). For example, a post may be published to a marketer's Facebook page, which then shows up in the feeds of consumers who are fans of the page);
receive, via an entry box of the creator campaign content registration interface, a remaining portion of the unique address exclusive of a… portion of the unique address associated with the selected active channel ([0037] At 222, the campaign is associated with one or more tracking URL templates, which are used to create tracking URLs for SRM posts; [0038] A tracking URL template may define a plurality of post parameters relating to a post that the URL is associated with, such as a post ID, social media site the post was posted on, campaign the post is associated with, time stamp of post, etc.; [0046] In some embodiments, the dynamic link generator 240 may retrieve a base URL from a base URL generator 252 in the marketing automation application 202. In some embodiments, the base URL corresponds to the tracking service to be used. The base URL is combined with the tracking URL template and retrieved parameters to form a complete tracking URL at 246; [0068] a user may use a UI 402-1 at a publishing interface 402 to create a post or social media message. Publishing interface 402 may be used to retrieve content assets 404 (e.g., pictures 404-1, videos 404-2, or text 404-3) to include as part of the post or message. In addition, publishing interface 402 may be used to retrieve one or more tracking URL templates and one or more tags 402-2, wherein the templates and tags correspond to a campaign structure generated by marketing automation application 406. Thus, posts created using publishing interface 402 can be associated with a particular campaign or promotion. The retrieved campaign tags 402-2 may include campaign name, ID, description, and/or other campaign properties. In addition to tags retrieved from marketing automation application 406, the user may also choose to define one or more custom parameters to be associated with the post. These tags and parameters may then be used with the retrieved tracking URL templates to construct a tracking URL; [0069] The retrieved content and tags are combined with user-inputted data at UI 402-1 to form a published post or message 408 one or more social media platforms (e.g., Facebook, Twitter, etc.). For example, a post may be published to a marketer's Facebook page, which then shows up in the feeds of consumers who are fans of the page);
combine the received remaining portion with the… portion to generate a unique content address, and access the campaign content posted by the creator on a video platform corresponding to the active channel based on the generated unique content address ([0046] In some embodiments, the dynamic link generator 240 may retrieve a base URL from a base URL generator 252 in the marketing automation application 202. In some embodiments, the base URL corresponds to the tracking service to be used. The base URL is combined with the tracking URL template and retrieved parameters to form a complete tracking URL at 246; [0068] publishing interface 402 may be used to retrieve one or more tracking URL templates and one or more tags 402-2, wherein the templates and tags correspond to a campaign structure generated by marketing automation application 406. Thus, posts created using publishing interface 402 can be associated with a particular campaign or promotion. The retrieved campaign tags 402-2 may include campaign name, ID, description, and/or other campaign properties. In addition to tags retrieved from marketing automation application 406, the user may also choose to define one or more custom parameters to be associated with the post. These tags and parameters may then be used with the retrieved tracking URL templates to construct a tracking URL; [0069] The retrieved content and tags are combined with user-inputted data at UI 402-1 to form a published post or message 408 one or more social media platforms (e.g., Facebook, Twitter, etc.). For example, a post may be published to a marketer's Facebook page, which then shows up in the feeds of consumers who are fans of the page);
determine whether the creator has completed performing the creator campaign based on the accessed campaign content ([0083] Tracking services may be used to track the number of clicks for particular posts or campaigns, to allow the marketer to assess the success of posts and campaigns by being able to view the clicks for a particular post or campaign.); and
However, Strutton does not explicitly teach the following limitations:
Receive, via an entry box… a remaining portion of the unique address exclusive of a common portion of the unique address
combine the received remaining portion with the common portion to generate a unique content address,
provide a reward to a supporter for the creator who has completed performing the creator campaign.
Koyfman, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the following limitations:
receive, via an entry box… a remaining portion of the unique address exclusive of a common portion of the unique address (Col. 67 Lines 53-57 Referring now to FIG. 79, the user is prompted for a URL which is associated with their one-page web site. The user enters the name in field 3060, and then proceeds to the next step to submit this as the URL selected; Fig. 79 “Pick a URL for your Create-A-Site: http://gtesupersite.com/[testlad]” (“http://gtesupersite.com/” is the common portion, and “testlad” is field 3060, which is the remaining portion received via an entry box))
combine the received remaining portion with the common portion to generate a unique content address (Col. 67 Lines 53-57 Referring now to FIG. 79, the user is prompted for a URL which is associated with their one-page web site. The user enters the name in field 3060, and then proceeds to the next step to submit this as the URL selected; Fig. 79 “Pick a URL for your Create-A-Site: http://gtesupersite.com/[testlad]” (“http://gtesupersite.com/” is the common portion, and “testlad” is field 3060, which is the remaining portion received via an entry box)),
This known technique is applicable to the system of Strutton as they both share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to posting advertising / promotional content on an online platform. One of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have recognized that applying the known technique of Koyfman would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system. It would have been recognized that applying the technique of Koyfman to the teachings of Strutton would have yielded predictable results because the level of one of ordinary skill in the art would have known to incorporate such features (i.e., combining a common portion with a user-entered portion of a web address to create a unique address) into similar systems.
However, Strutton, in combination with Koyfman, does not explicitly teach the following limitations:
provide a reward to a supporter for the creator who has completed performing the creator campaign.
Yu, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the following limitations:
provide a reward to a supporter for the creator who has completed performing the creator campaign ([0052] the expression “exposing/displaying” of content may be interpreted to include providing promotional content associated with the content provider 110; [0010] Some example embodiments may provide content based on an interest of a user and may provide a reward for content consumption of the user to all participants of a platform as well as the user; [0070] as a reward for viewing the advertisement, the computer system 200 may pay points in predetermined (or, alternatively, desired) currency to the user 140 based on an amount of time during which the user 140 views the advertisement and/or a specific condition… the computer system 200 may pay points to the user 140 as a reward by consuming at least a portion of the advertisement issuance points. According to some example embodiments, the computer system 200 may pay at least a portion of the advertisement issuance points to the user 140 as a reward).
This known technique is applicable to the system of Strutton, in combination with Koyfman, as they both share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to posting advertising / promotional content on an online platform. One of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have recognized that applying the known technique of Yu would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system. It would have been recognized that applying the technique of Yu to the teachings of Strutton, in combination with Koyfman, would have yielded predictable results because the level of one of ordinary skill in the art would have known to incorporate such features (i.e., rewarding a supporter of a content creator) into similar systems.
Claim 2 (and Similarly Claim 12)
Yu further teaches the following limitations:
wherein the controller provides viewer points to the supporter for the creator as the reward, and provides supporter viewer points, entered by the supporter, as support money for the creator ([0071] (4) The computer system 200 may support the user 140 to use an added value in a platform with points held by the user 140. The computer system 200 may provide an environment in which points of the user 140 are available as a currency in the platform (e.g., represent value exchangeable on the platform). For example, the computer system 200 may provide… a function of donating points to the creator 160 that participates in the platform).
This known technique is applicable to the system of Strutton, in combination with Koyfman, as they both share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to posting advertising / promotional content on an online platform. One of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have recognized that applying the known technique of Yu would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system. It would have been recognized that applying the technique of Yu to the teachings of Strutton, in combination with Koyfman, would have yielded predictable results because the level of one of ordinary skill in the art would have known to incorporate such features (i.e., rewarding a content creator by a supporter) into similar systems.
Claim 3 (and Similarly Claim 13)
Yu further teaches the following limitations:
wherein the controller provides a creator reward, set for the creator campaign, to the creator who has completed performing the creator campaign ([0071] (4) The computer system 200 may support the user 140 to use an added value in a platform with points held by the user 140. The computer system 200 may provide an environment in which points of the user 140 are available as a currency in the platform (e.g., represent value exchangeable on the platform). For example, the computer system 200 may provide… a function of donating points to the creator 160 that participates in the platform).
This known technique is applicable to the system of Strutton, in combination with Koyfman, as they both share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to posting advertising / promotional content on an online platform. One of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have recognized that applying the known technique of Yu would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system. It would have been recognized that applying the technique of Yu to the teachings of Strutton, in combination with Koyfman, would have yielded predictable results because the level of one of ordinary skill in the art would have known to incorporate such features (i.e., rewarding a content creator) into similar systems.
Claims 4-5 and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Strutton et al. (US-20200027128), Koyfman et al. (US-8849693), and Yu (US-20210326917), and further in view of Shibata (US-20220141516).
Claim 4 (and Similarly Claim 14)
Strutton, in combination with Koyfman and Yu, does not explicitly teach the following limitations:
wherein the creator who has completed performing the creator campaign comprises a plurality of creators, and the controller distributes the reward, set for the creator campaign, to the plurality of creators who have completed performing the creator campaign according to predetermined criteria.
Shibata, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the following limitations:
wherein the creator who has completed performing the creator campaign comprises a plurality of creators, and the controller distributes the reward, set for the creator campaign, to the plurality of creators who have completed performing the creator campaign according to predetermined criteria ([0069] “rank” indicating the rank of the user as a distributor; [0120] a diamond, which is a reward for the user as a distributor, is given based on the distribution time of the previous day and the rank (the rank on the previous day). FIG. 19 is a flowchart illustrating a process executed by the server 10 when assigning a diamond to each distributor; [0121] First, the server 10 calculates the distribution time of each user on the previous day as shown in the drawing (step S400); [0122] Subsequently, the server 10 assigns each user a number of diamonds based on the calculated distribution time and a reference number of diamonds (step S410). Specifically, each user is given a number of diamonds obtained by multiplying the calculated distribution time by the reference number of diamonds. The reference number of diamonds is set in advance for each rank so that the higher the rank, the larger the reference number of diamonds, and the reference number of diamonds corresponding to the rank of each user on the previous day is applied).
This known technique is applicable to the system of Strutton, in combination with Koyfman and Yu, as they both share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to content creation platforms. One of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have recognized that applying the known technique of Shibata would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system. It would have been recognized that applying the technique of Shibata to the teachings of Strutton, in combination with Koyfman and Yu, would have yielded predictable results because the level of one of ordinary skill in the art would have known to incorporate such features (i.e., distributing a reward to multiple content creators based on certain criteria) into similar systems.
Claim 5 (and Similarly Claim 15)
Strutton, in combination with Koyfman and Yu, does not explicitly teach the following limitations:
wherein the controller distributes the reward, set for the creator campaign, to the plurality of creators based on at least one of rankings, numbers of views, and numbers of likes for respective pieces of content submitted by the plurality of creators for participation in the creator campaign.
Shibata, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the following limitations:
wherein the controller distributes the reward, set for the creator campaign, to the plurality of creators based on at least one of rankings, numbers of views, and numbers of likes for respective pieces of content submitted by the plurality of creators for participation in the creator campaign ([0069] “rank” indicating the rank of the user as a distributor; [0120] a diamond, which is a reward for the user as a distributor, is given based on the distribution time of the previous day and the rank (the rank on the previous day). FIG. 19 is a flowchart illustrating a process executed by the server 10 when assigning a diamond to each distributor; [0121] First, the server 10 calculates the distribution time of each user on the previous day as shown in the drawing (step S400); [0122] Subsequently, the server 10 assigns each user a number of diamonds based on the calculated distribution time and a reference number of diamonds (step S410). Specifically, each user is given a number of diamonds obtained by multiplying the calculated distribution time by the reference number of diamonds. The reference number of diamonds is set in advance for each rank so that the higher the rank, the larger the reference number of diamonds, and the reference number of diamonds corresponding to the rank of each user on the previous day is applied).
This known technique is applicable to the system of Strutton, in combination with Koyfman and Yu, as they both share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to content creation platforms. One of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have recognized that applying the known technique of Shibata would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system. It would have been recognized that applying the technique of Shibata to the teachings of Strutton, in combination with Koyfman and Yu, would have yielded predictable results because the level of one of ordinary skill in the art would have known to incorporate such features (i.e., distributing a reward to multiple content creators based on certain criteria, such as user rankings) into similar systems.
Claims 6-8 and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Strutton et al. (US-20200027128), Koyfman et al. (US-8849693), and Yu (US-20210326917), and further in view of Seidl et al. (US-20220005069).
Claim 6 (and Similarly Claim 16)
Yu further teaches the following limitations:
wherein the controller: provides… points to the creator who has completed performing the creator campaign ([0071] The computer system 200 may provide an environment in which points of the user 140 are available as a currency in the platform (e.g., represent value exchangeable on the platform). For example, the computer system 200 may provide… a function of donating points to the creator 160 that participates in the platform); and
This known technique is applicable to the system of Strutton, in combination with Koyfman, as they both share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to posting advertising / promotional content on an online platform. One of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have recognized that applying the known technique of Yu would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system. It would have been recognized that applying the technique of Yu to the teachings of Strutton, in combination with Koyfman, would have yielded predictable results because the level of one of ordinary skill in the art would have known to incorporate such features (i.e., giving points to a content creator) into similar systems.
However, Strutton, in combination with Koyfman and Yu, does not explicitly teach the following limitations:
wherein the controller: provides one or more experience points to the (user); and
when cumulative experience points of the (user) are equal to or larger than a preset reference, increases a level of the (user) and provides one or more level-up items to the (user) as the reward.
Seidl, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the following limitations:
wherein the controller: provides one or more experience points to the (user) ([0019] user engagement system 10 also allows users to earn a leveraged income based on a profit-sharing community (PSC) the users are able to build. For example, the user earns a percentage of all the reward points earned by members of the PSC built by the user; [0031] when a current user of user engagement system 10 successfully invite people on to user engagement system 10, this allows the current user to achieve a higher rank in user engagement system 10. The higher the rank the greater the reward points for the user. For example, one invited person results in a one-Star rank. Ten invited people results in a two-Star rank, one hundred invited people equals a three-Star. When there are three three-Star members in a user's PSC, the user achieves a four-star rank. When there are three four-Star members in a user's PSC, the user achieves a five-star rank); and
when cumulative experience points of the (user) are equal to or larger than a preset reference, increases a level of the (user) and provides one or more level-up items to the (user) as the reward ([0031] when a current user of user engagement system 10 successfully invite people on to user engagement system 10, this allows the current user to achieve a higher rank in user engagement system 10. The higher the rank the greater the reward points for the user. For example, one invited person results in a one-Star rank. Ten invited people results in a two-Star rank, one hundred invited people equals a three-Star. When there are three three-Star members in a user's PSC, the user achieves a four-star rank. When there are three four-Star members in a user's PSC, the user achieves a five-star rank; [0020] bonus reward points pertain to Status, Rank, and Community. Rank is tier achievement and affects the percentage earned in the PSC that the user earns. For example, a one star rank for a user means the user will earn two percent of the reward points earned with the user's PSC. Similarly, a five star rank for a user means the user will earn ten percent of the reward points earned with the user's PSC, and so on).
This known technique is applicable to the system of Strutton, in combination with Koyfman and Yu, as they both share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to content creation platforms. One of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have recognized that applying the known technique of Seidl would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system. It would have been recognized that applying the technique of Seidl to the teachings of Strutton, in combination with Koyfman and Yu, would have yielded predictable results because the level of one of ordinary skill in the art would have known to incorporate such features (i.e., providing points to users, increasing users’ levels based on accumulating more points, and providing benefits / rewards to users for leveling up) into similar systems.
Claim 7 (and Similarly Claim 17)
Strutton further teaches a creator ([0034] SRM administrators 206 and SRM users 208 operate on SRM logic 204 and marketing automation program 202 to define campaigns and publish social media posts and messages, which are then viewed by social media users or consumers 210)
However, Strutton, in combination with Koyfman and Yu, does not explicitly teach the following limitations:
wherein the controller grants a… grade to the (user) based on the level of the (user), and provides benefits to the (user) according to the granted… grade.
Seidl, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the following limitations:
wherein the controller grants a… grade to the (user) based on the level of the (user), and provides benefits to the (user) according to the granted… grade ([0020] bonus reward points pertain to Status, Rank, and Community. Status is personal reward points earned per month. For example, there are status levels. For example, an active level is achieved when the user earns one bonus reward point. For example, a platinum is achieved when a user earns three thousand bonus reward points earned... status determines from whom in the PSC the user earns bonus reward points. For example, when a user achieves Platinum status, the user earns bonus reward points on all members within the user's PSC).
This known technique is applicable to the system of Strutton, in combination with Koyfman and Yu, as they both share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to content creation platforms. One of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have recognized that applying the known technique of Seidl would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system. It would have been recognized that applying the technique of Seidl to the teachings of Strutton, in combination with Koyfman and Yu, would have yielded predictable results because the level of one of ordinary skill in the art would have known to incorporate such features (i.e., granting a grade to a user and providing benefits to the user based on the grade) into similar systems.
Claim 8
Yu further teaches the following limitations:
wherein the controller deducts a specific number of participation items set for the creator campaign from participation items held by the creator… for participation in the creator campaign ([0068] (1) The computer system 200 may provide advertisement issuance points corresponding to an advertising fee paid to the publisher 130 by an advertiser that is the content provider 110. Hereinafter, the content provider 110 may also be referred to as the “advertiser 110.” The advertiser 110 may acquire, for example, purchase, advertisement issuance points from the publisher 130 and may consume the advertisement issuance points to issue a targeting advertisement).
This known technique is applicable to the system of Strutton, in combination with Koyfman, as they both share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to posting advertising / promotional content on an online platform. One of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have recognized that applying the known technique of Yu would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system. It would have been recognized that applying the technique of Yu to the teachings of Strutton, in combination with Koyfman, would have yielded predictable results because the level of one of ordinary skill in the art would have known to incorporate such features (i.e., deducting participation items from a creator, set for a campaign, for participating in the campaign) into similar systems.
However, Strutton, in combination with Koyfman and Yu, does not explicitly teach the following limitations:
deducts a specific number of participation items… within a preset usage limit for a predetermined period of time
Seidl, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the following limitations:
wherein the controller deducts a specific number of participation items set for the creator campaign from participation items held by the creator within a preset usage limit for a predetermined period of time for participation in the creator campaign ([0018] user engagement system 10 charges advertisers an engagement fee per user to watch their advertising videos and answer their advertising survey. For example the advertising budget for the ad campaign is based on the cost per engagement (CPE) and pay per engagement (PPE) the advertiser pays for an engage of a user watching advertising videos. For example, the amount of money in the ad campaign budget limits the number of users able to watch the advertising video and participate in the advertising survey. For example, for each video, a progress bar informs users how much of the ad campaign budget remains. For example, a 40% progress bar means 40% of the budget remains. Once the ad campaign budget is spent (zero budget remaining), no other users are able to engage with the advertiser).
This known technique is applicable to the system of Strutton, in combination with Koyfman and Yu, as they both share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to content creation platforms. One of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have recognized that applying the known technique of Seidl would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system. It would have been recognized that applying the technique of Seidl to the teachings of Strutton, in combination with Koyfman and Yu, would have yielded predictable results because the level of one of ordinary skill in the art would have known to incorporate such features (i.e., deducting participation items from a creator for participating in a campaign under preset conditions) into similar systems.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Strutton et al. (US-20200027128), Koyfman et al. (US-8849693), and Yu (US-20210326917), and further in view of Seidl et al. (US-20220005069) and Suzman et al. (US-20150050997).
Claim 9
Strutton, in combination with Koyfman, Yu, and Seidl, does not explicitly teach the following limitations:
wherein the controller provides one or more participation items to the creator at regular intervals, the controller providing the participation items according to the creator grade of the creator.
Suzman, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the following limitations:
wherein the controller provides one or more participation items to the creator at regular intervals, the controller providing the participation items according to the creator grade of the creator ([0006] receiving ratings of the object from a plurality of other users, and periodically awarding in-game currency to the player based on a rating level received by the player's drawing creations; [0068] Some objects may require a predetermined amount of in-game currency for the crafting, and other resources may be required as well. The different resources may be replenished in different ways, such as the passage of time for energy, the collection of ink from ink wells, and the acquisition of currency through receiving popular ratings).
This known technique is applicable to the system of Strutton, in combination with Koyfman, Yu, and Seidl, as they both share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to content creation platforms. One of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have recognized that applying the known technique of Suzman would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system. It would have been recognized that applying the technique of Suzman to the teachings of Strutton, in combination with Koyfman, Yu, and Seidl, would have yielded predictable results because the level of one of ordinary skill in the art would have known to incorporate such features (i.e., periodically providing participation items to a creator based on a grade of a creator) into similar systems.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Strutton et al. (US-20200027128), Koyfman et al. (US-8849693), and Yu (US-20210326917), and further in view of Manova et al. (US-20250104106).
Claim 10
Strutton, in combination with Koyfman, and Yu, does not explicitly teach the following limitations:
wherein the controller sets a participation reservation for a creator campaign selected by the creator, and marks and provides the creator campaign, for which the participation reservation has been made, on a calendar of the creator.
Manova, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the following limitations:
wherein the controller sets a participation reservation for a creator campaign selected by the creator, and marks and provides the creator campaign, for which the participation reservation has been made, on a calendar of the creator ([0021] the VMA may create all the content for a full editorial calendar (including for example blogs, social media posts, email marketing, articles, advertising campaigns, etc.) and schedule them in advance on a daily, weekly or monthly basis).
This known technique is applicable to the system of Strutton, in combination with Koyfman, and Yu, as they both share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to content creation platforms. One of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have recognized that applying the known technique of Manova would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system. It would have been recognized that applying the technique of Manova to the teachings of Strutton, in combination with Koyfman, and Yu, would have yielded predictable results because the level of one of ordinary skill in the art would have known to incorporate such features (i.e., scheduling a campaign on a calendar) into similar systems.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s Argument Regarding 35 USC 101 Rejection of Claims 1-19:
Claim 19 has been canceled.
Claim 1 has been amended, and the amended claim is not directed to the abstract idea of organizing human activities.
The Examiner asserts that the claims relate to commercial interactions and business relations. However, amended independent claim 1 now recites operations that are fundamentally impossible to perform in the human mind and does not describe a fundamental economic practice. Specifically, the claim requires providing a specialized graphical user interface (a creator campaign content registration interface). Via an entry box in this interface, the system receives only a remaining portion of a URL exclusive of a common portion corresponding to a selected video platform. The controller then algorithmically combines these data strings to generate a unique content address and uses that address to access a third-party server. A human being cannot mentally execute data string parsing, programmatic URL generation, or server access protocols. Because the claimed steps require specialized machine execution, the claim is not directed to a method of organizing human activity or a mental process.
Even if the claim were found to recite an abstract idea, it integrates that idea into a practical application by providing a specific technological solution to an internet-centric problem (DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245 (Fed. Cir. 2014)).
Verifying whether a creator has completed a campaign task when their content is hosted on isolated, third-party video networks (e.g., YouTube or AfreecaTV) is a problem unique to computer networks. The amended claim provides a specific, technical solution to this network problem. Rather than relying on human verification or generic data transmission, the claimed system utilizes a targeted URL string-concatenation protocol (combining an exclusive remaining portion with a common platform portion) to successfully bridge the gap to the external server. This represents a specific improvement in how the system communicates with external platforms. Therefore, the claim recites a patent-eligible subject matter.
Examiner’s Response: Applicant’s amendments with respect to claim 19 have been fully considered and they resolve the identified issue. Applicant’s amendments and arguments with respect to Claims 1-18 have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive.
Regarding Applicant’s argument that claim 1 recites operations that are fundamentally impossible to perform in the human mind, and that a human being cannot mentally execute data string parsing, programmatic URL generation, or server access protocols, the Examiner did not reject the claims under Mental Processes; the claims were rejected under Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity. Regarding the user interface, though it is an additional element, it is recited as a generic GUI with generic elements to implement the abstract idea. Information is received through the interface. The information is combined with existing information, and campaign content is accessed through a third-party, which is all part of the abstract idea. The third-party server, also an additional element, is recited as a generic platform for posting and viewing content. Further, regarding the controller algorithmically combining data strings to generate a unique content address, and regarding “data string parsing” and “programmatic URL generation,” Fig. 6 of the disclosure demonstrates that this is simply a user-inputted path being tagged onto a website domain to complete the web address.
Regarding Applicant’s argument that the amended claim provides a specific, technical solution to the problem of verifying whether a creator has completed a campaign task when their content is hosted on isolated, third-party video networks, and the “specific improvement in how the system communicates with external platforms,” the specification does not provide any details of how the claimed invention provides any improvement to the functioning of computers, computer networks, external servers, or any other technology.
The additional elements are generic computers and servers, used as a tools to implement the abstract idea. The claimed invention does not pertain to an improvement in the functioning of the computer itself or any other technology or technical field. Thus, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Applicant’s Argument Regarding 35 USC 102 and 103 Rejections of Claims 1-19:
Claim 1 has been amended, and the combined references fail to teach or suggest at least the amended features.
Examiner’s Response: Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are moot in light of the new ground of rejection above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon, considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure or directed to the state of art, is listed on the enclosed PTO-892.
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 KARMA EL-CHANTI whose telephone number is (571)272-3404. The examiner can normally be reached T-Sa 10am-6pm ET.
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, Sarah Monfeldt can be reached at (571)270-1833. 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.
/KARMA A EL-CHANTI/Examiner, Art Unit 3629 /SARAH M MONFELDT/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3629
