DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
Claims 1-19 are currently pending and have been examined in this application. This communication is the first action on the merits.
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.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim does not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because the claim is directed to a computer program per se (i.e., the descriptions or expressions of the programs). Such programs are not physical “devices” or “structures,” nor are they statutory processes, as they are not “acts” being performed. The claims are directed to disembodied data structures, which are not statutory (In re Warmerdam, No. 93-1294 (Fed. Cir. August 11, 1994)).
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 and provide a reward to a supporter for a 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 and provide a reward to a supporter for a 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). 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 (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) 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 § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3, 11-13, and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Yu (US-20210326917).
Claim 1 (and Similarly Claims 11, 18, and 19)
Yu teaches the following limitations:
An apparatus for managing creator campaigns, the apparatus comprising: memory; and a controller configured to provide a creator campaign and provide a reward to a supporter for a 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).
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 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).
Claim 3 (and Similarly Claim 13)
Yu further teaches the following limitations:
wherein the controller provides viewer points to the supporter for the creator as the reward, and provides 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).
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 4-5 and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yu (US-20210326917) in view of Shibata (US-20220141516).
Claim 4 (and Similarly Claim 14)
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 Yu as they both share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to content creation platforms with rewards for users. 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 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 users based on certain criteria) into similar systems.
Claim 5 (and Similarly Claim 15)
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 Yu as they both share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to content creation platforms with rewards for users. 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 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 users 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 Yu (US-20210326917) 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
However, 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 Yu as they both share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to content creation platforms with rewards for users. 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 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)
Yu further teaches a creator ([0071] the computer system 200 may provide… a function of donating points to the creator 160 that participates in the platform)
However, 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 Yu as they both share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to content creation platforms with rewards for users. 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 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).
However, 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 Yu as they both share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to content creation platforms with rewards for users. 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 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 Yu (US-20210326917) in view of Seidl et al. (US-20220005069), and further in view of Suzman et al. (US-20150050997).
Claim 9
Yu, in combination with 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 Yu as they both share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to content creation platforms with rewards for users. 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 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., 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 Yu (US-20210326917) in view of Manova et al. (US-20250104106).
Claim 10
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 the creator's calendar.
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 the creator's calendar ([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 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 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.
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.
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