DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Response to Amendment
This Action is in response to the Amendment filed April 13, 2026. Claims 1, 6, 8, 13, 15 and 19 are amended. Claims 1-20 are pending and have been examined in this application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claims contain subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
In claims 1, 9 and 15 the limitation “transforming, by the social media content generator, the instructions into seed data” is not supported by the original disclosure. The specification states that “Social media content generator 108 may send the information as seed data to AI engine 104 with a request such as “generate prompts for social media posts targeting customers of plumbing services in City A”. AI engine 104 may analyze the seed data using suitable AI algorithms and return a plurality of prompts as requested” [0044]. This does not describe that a social media content generator transforms instructions into seed data Accordingly, the limitation is directed to impermissible new matter. Claims 2-7, 9-14 and 16-20 by being dependents of Claims 1, 8 and 15 respectively are also rejected.
In claims 1, 9 and 15 the limitation “responsive to transforming the instructions into seed data, providing, by the social media content generator, the seed data to an artificial intelligence (AI) engine with instructions to generate a plurality of prompts to create content for the social media posts” is not supported by the original disclosure. The specification states that “Social media content generator 108 may send the information as seed data to AI engine 104 with a request such as “generate prompts for social media posts targeting customers of plumbing services in City A”. AI engine 104 may analyze the seed data using suitable AI algorithms and return a plurality of prompts as requested” [0044]. This does not describe that instructions to generate a plurality of prompts to create content for the social media posts is in response to transforming instructions into seed data. Accordingly, the limitation is directed to impermissible new matter. Claims 2-7, 9-14 and 16-20 by being dependents of Claims 1, 8 and 15 respectively are also rejected.
In claims 1, 9 and 15 the limitation “sending, by the social media content generator, the selected prompt to the AI engine to generate a first batch of social media posts and a publishing schedule for the first batch of social media posts according to rules of the social media platform and post insights of previously published social media posts on the social media platform” is not supported by the original disclosure. The specification states that a “a subset of images from the plurality of non-textual content may be selected based on semantic association with the selected textual content. In some embodiments, social media content generator 108 may first select the textual content and then send a request to AI engine 104 to generate non-textual content based the selected textual content, the request comprising prompts selected from the textual content” [0046]. This does not describe that the social media content generator sends selected prompt to the AI engine to generate a first batch of social media posts and a publishing schedule for the first batch of social media posts according to rules of the social media platform and post insights. Accordingly, the limitation is directed to impermissible new matter. Claims 2-7, 9-14 and 16-20 by being dependents of Claims 1, 8 and 15 respectively are also rejected.
In claims 1, 9 and 15 the limitation “automatically publishing by a social media manager tool interfacing with an application programming interface (API) of the social media platform, one of the social media post in the first batch on the social media platform according to the publishing schedule” is not supported by the original disclosure. The specification states that “Automatically posting the social media posts may include accessing the appropriate social media platform 116 using suitable access tokens, and executing the appropriate function to post (e.g., publish, make visible, etc.) through a corresponding API of social media platform” [0048]. This does not describe that a social media manager tool interfacing with an application programming interface (API) of the social media platform publishes social media post in the first batch on the social media platform according to a publishing schedule. Accordingly, the limitation is directed to impermissible new matter. Claims 2-7, 9-14 and 16-20 by being dependents of Claims 1, 8 and 15 respectively are also rejected.
In claims 1, 9 and 15 the limitation “monitoring by the social media manager tool, post insights on the published social media post” is not supported by the original disclosure. The specification states that “Social media manager 114 may communicate with social media platform 116 to post social media posts 332 according to schedule 408 and/or recycle schedule 504 as appropriate, receive post insights 344 from social media platform 116 and send post insights” [0095]. This does not describe that a social media manager tool monitors post insights. Accordingly, the limitation is directed to impermissible new matter. Claims 2-7, 9-14 and 16-20 by being dependents of Claims 1, 8 and 15 respectively are also rejected.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. Specifically, claims 1-20 are directed toward at least abstract idea without significantly more. In accordance with MPEP § 2106, the rationale for this determination is explained below.
Representative claim 1 is directed towards a method, claim 8 is directed towards a non-transitory computer-readable media, claim 15 is directed towards an apparatus, which are statutory categories of invention.
Although, claim 1 is directed toward a statutory category of invention, the claim however, is directed toward a judicial exception namely an abstract idea. The limitations that set forth the abstract idea recites:
receiving instructions to publish social media posts on a plurality of social media platforms, the social media posts indicative of a business niche and a target audience;
transforming, the instructions into seed data; responsive to transforming the instructions into seed data, providing, the seed data with instructions to generate a plurality of prompts to create content for the social media posts; receiving, the plurality of prompts according to the seed data and the instructions; and for each social media platform in the plurality, selecting, a prompt from the plurality of prompts, sending, by the social media content generator, the selected prompt to the AI engine to generate a first batch of social media posts and a publishing schedule for the first batch of social media posts according to rules of the social media platform and post insights of previously published social media posts on the social media platform,
automatically publishing one of the social media post in the first batch on the social media platform according to the publishing schedule; monitoring, post insights on the published social media post; providing the post insights for learning; receiving, a second batch of social media posts according to the learning, the second batch of social media posts comprising unpublished social media posts of the first batch of social media posts, modified according to the learning,
and automatically publishing a next one of the social media posts in the second batch of social media posts on the social media platform according to the publishing schedule. These limitations, set forth commercial interactions including, marketing or sales activities and business relations, as well as managing personal behavior or interactions between people including social activities and following rules or instructions (human user provides as input, information indicating that a business providing plumbing services wants to publish social media posts [0044]. As such, the limitations are directed towards the abstract grouping of Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity in prong one of step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) II).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because, when analyzed as a whole under prong two of step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test (see MPEP 2106.04(d)), the additional elements provided by the claim amount to merely using a computer as a tool to apply an abstract idea. In particular the claim recites the additional elements: at a social media content generator; by the social media content generator; by the social media content generator, to an artificial intelligence (AI) engine; at the social media content generator, from the AI engine; by the social media content generator; automatically by a social media manager tool interfacing with an application programming interface (API) of the social media platform; by the social media manager tool; by the social media content generator; at the social media content generator from the AI engine, which are recited at a high level of generality and are the mere use of a computer as a tool to perform the abstract ideas. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Simply applying the abstract idea by a computer is not a practical application of the abstract idea. The additional elements do not involve improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field (MPEP 2106.05(a)), the claim does not apply the abstract idea with, or by use of, a particular machine (MPEP 2106.05(b)), the claim does not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (MPEP 2106.05(c)), and the claim does not apply or use the abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the abstract idea 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 does not, for example, purport to improve the functioning of a computer. Nor does it effect an improvement in any other technology or technical field. Accordingly, the additional elements do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and the claim is directed to abstract ideas.
The claim does 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 claim recites the additional limitations of a content generator, an artificial intelligence (AI) engine, manager tool interfacing with an application programming interface (API), a processor, (claim 8), a processing circuitry, a memory (claim 15), which do not constitute significantly more because they are simply an attempt to limit the abstract idea to a particular technological environment1. Viewing these limitations as a combination, the additional elements amount to no more than merely applying the exception using generic computer components, executing basic functions of a computer. Merely applying an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. Therefore, the limitations of the claim as a whole, when viewed individually and as an ordered combination, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
A review of dependent claims 2-7, likewise, do not recite any limitations that would remedy the deficiencies outlined above. The claims only further add to the abstract idea, with no elements which integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or constitute significantly more. Thus, while they may slightly narrow the abstract idea by further describing it, they do not make it less abstract and are rejected accordingly. Further still, claims 8-20 suffer from substantially the same deficiencies as outlined with respect to claims 1-7 and are also rejected accordingly.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's filed arguments have been fully considered but have not been found persuasive.
A. Applicant argues regarding the 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejection that the independent claims cannot be performed by any general purpose computer as the claims are configured to be performed only with components listed in the claim, for example a social media content generator and a social media planner tool. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claims are directed to abstract ideas grouped under Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity because they are directed to social media activity. Using a particular name for a module or tool does not make a general purpose computer a special purpose computer, because the claims (i) are not a means-plus-function claims, and (ii) there are no algorithms in the present claims to transform a general purpose microprocessor to a special purpose computer.
Applicant contends that claims directed to automated systems are not abstract when tied to improvements. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant’s claim nor specification provides for any improvement in the computer itself or any other technical filed. Indeed, Applicant’s specification only describes “ensuring that businesses stay top-of-mind with their audience and improving engagement rates over time” [0021], which is improving on the abstract idea and not a technical improvement.
As such, the claims as a whole, in view of Alice, do not connote an improvement to another technology or technical field; the claims do not amount to an improvement to the functioning of a computer itself; and the claims do not move beyond a general link of the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Therefore, the 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejection is maintained.
Conclusion
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 extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Errol CARVALHO whose telephone number is (571)272-9987. The Examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9:30-7:00 Alt Fri
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ilana Spar can be reached on 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/E CARVALHO/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3622
1 See, Alice Corp. Pty Ltd. v. CLS Bank lnt'l, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 2360 (2014) (noting that none of the hardware recited “offers a meaningful limitation beyond generally linking ‘the use of the [method] to a particular technological environment,’ that is, implementation via computers” (citing Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 610-11 (2010))).
Prosecution Insights