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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 14-24 objected to because of the following informalities: The aforementioned method dependent claims incorrectly refer to system claims. For example dependent claim 14 should read as “the method of claim 13.” Appropriate correction is required.
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 – 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) the following limitations that are considered to be abstract ideas:
Claims 1, 11 and 25
receive data indicative of user engagement with social media content presented via one or more social media platforms;
determine measures of user engagement with the social media content based on the received data;
apply the determined measures to a performance model for generating a performance score of the social media content; and
present the performance score to a user via a user interface.
The limitations of independent claim 1, 11, and 25 as detailed above, as drafted, falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity because the claims have concepts of commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations). Also falls within Mental Processes - concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) (- e.g. evaluation performance of content) The applicant’s claims are directed to collecting user engagement data for social media content, analyzing the data to determine engagement metrics, and generating and presenting a performance score to a user. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular the claims recite the additional elements of content engagement manager, social media platform, performance model and user interface. The aforementioned additional generic computing elements perform the steps of the claims at a high level of generality (i.e. As a generic medium performing generic computer function of receiving, determining, applying and presenting) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
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 additional elements of content engagement manager, social media platform, performance model and user interface amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of the computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide generic computer implementation.
Thus, taken individually and in combination, the additional elements do not amount to
significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea).
The dependent claims 2-12 and 14-24, appear to merely further limit the abstract and as such, the analysis of dependent claims 2-12 and 14-24 results in the claims “reciting” an abstract idea The claims the claims do not recite additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application the additional elements do not amount to an inventive concept (significantly more) other than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). Thus, based on the detailed analysis above, claims 1 - 25 are not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claim(s) 1-11, 13-23, and 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bouganim et al. (US 2022/0138866).
Claims 1, 13, 25: Bouganim discloses a system comprising:
a social media content engagement manager configured to:
receive data indicative of user engagement with social media content presented via one
or more social media platforms; (see for example [0054] the user interface identifies a first subset of actions as having high priority for completion within a short time frame and additional actions for completion during a longer time period. As can readily be appreciated, the continuous gathering of metadata concerning events by a relationship management system enables the relationship management system to continuously and dynamically update contact recommendations and/or action recommendations in real time and in response to actions taken by the user and [0068] event information can include any of a variety of sources including email services, such as Gmail and/or a Microsoft Exchange server, call data records from mobile phones or other telephony systems, meeting and calendars, and/or social network messages, updates, postings, and/or activities on services including, but not limited to, Facebook, LinkedIn, and Twitter. In a number of embodiments, event metadata can be exported in a batch file format from these sources and/or accessed via an API. In many embodiments, event metadata is obtained from mobile devices including but not limited to smart phones configured to communicate with a relationship management system via an application installed on the mobile device. In several embodiments, the relationship management system relies upon another system, including but not limited to a CRM, to partially or completely aggregate event information. When event information is aggregated by a separate system, the aggregated event information can be passed to the scoring engine via an API. Although specific sources of event information are listed above, any of a variety of sources of event information can be interfaced with a relationship management system in accordance with embodiments of the invention to enable the aggregation of event information as appropriate to a specific user and/or application. Also see [0053, 0069, 0075, 0136])
determine measures of user engagement with the social media content based on the
received data; (see for example [0004], he software directs the processor in the relationship management server system to identify an objective with respect to an entity defined by a customer relationship management (CRM) service, identify a first set of contacts within the plurality of contacts associated with the objective, aggregate event information associated with the first set of contacts from at least one source of event information, score the objective based upon event information associated with the first set of contacts to generate at least one engagement score, and provide recommendation data to the CRM service from which a task is created within the CRM service associated with at least one contact in the first set of contacts based upon the at least one engagement score., Also see [0061-0063, 0117])
apply the determined measures to a performance model for generating a performance
score of the social media content;(see for example [0075], , a relationship scoring engine 64, a contacts manager 66, and a relationship modeling system 68. In many embodiments, the contact manager 66 manages the data from the contacts integrated by the relationship management system, and the relationship scoring engine 64 scores event information with respect to specific contacts. The scored events can then be provided to the relationship modeling system, which constructs a scored social graph (e.g. performance model) using the scored event information and the characteristics of the relationships between the user and specific contacts. In some embodiments, the modeling system can also deliver engagement scores between the user and specific contacts associated with an objective or opportunity. The engagement score (e.g. performance score) may provide an indication regarding the progress level of user(s) activity(ies) relative to a desired objective. In particular, the engagement score may provide a progress indication of the level and effectiveness of events between groups of users and contacts with respect to a particular objective that may be helpful in conducting forecasting and analytics, also see [0110, 0112, 0128, 0129]) and
present the performance score to a user via a user interface. ([0056], The relationship management system can then push relationship scores and/or engagement scores to the CRM system for presentation via the user interface of the CRM system. The relationship management system may also push event information into the CRM system captured by the relationship management system. In particular, the relationship management system may capture real-time event information from many different sources of event information and provide this information to the CRM system)
Claim 2, 14: Bouganim disclose the system of claim 1 and method of claim 13, wherein the social media content includes one of a text post, an image, a video, a carousel, a story, a short, audio, an interactive element, and a reel. [0068]
Claim 3,15: Bouganim discloses the system of claim 1 and method of claim 13, wherein the data indicative of user engagement includes one of a measure of user engagement with the social media content, a rate of user engagement with the social media content, a measure of reach of users with the social media content, a number of impressions with the social media content, likes, reactions, comments, shares, click-throughs, swipe-ups, completions, and a conversion action. [0068]
Claim 4: Bouganim discloses the system of claim 1, further comprising a computing device including the social media content engagement manager. [0066 and 0068]
Claim 5: Bouganim discloses the system of claim 1, further comprising a computing device including the social media content engagement manager, and wherein the computing device is configured to receive the data indicative of user engagement from a plurality of other computing devices. [0054, 0055, and 0068]
Claim 6, 18: Bouganim discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the social media content engagement manager is configured to receive the data indicative of user engagement from a plurality of computing devices that implement social media functionalities of a plurality of different platform types. [0051-0056, 0074 and 0075]
Claim 7, 19: Bouganim discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the data is generated at a plurality of computing devices that implement social media functionalities of a plurality of different platform types. [0051-0056, 0074 and 0075]
Claim 8, 20: Bouganim discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the performance model includes a plurality of variables and weights associated with the variables, and wherein the social media content engagement manager is configured to apply the determined measures to variables of the performance model for generating the performance score of the social media content. [0109-0114, 0127 and 0135]
Claim 9, 21: Bouganim discloses the system of claim 8, wherein the social media content engagement manager is configured to dynamically adjust the weights based on a learning algorithm. [0109-0114, 0119, 0127, 0147]
Claim 10, 22: Bouganim discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the social media content engagement manager is configured to compare the determined measures as weighted by the performance model to corresponding historical averages for other posted social media content for a user account associated with the social media content. [0073]
Claim 11, 23: Bouganim discloses the system of claim 1, further comprising a user interface configured to display the performance score. [0056]
Claim 16: Bouganim discloses the method of claim 11, wherein the steps of receiving, determining, applying, and presenting are implement at a computing device. [0066 and 0068]
Claim 17: Bouganim discloses the method of claim 11, further comprising receiving the data indicative of user engagement from a plurality of computing devices. [0066 and 0068]
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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.
Claim(s) 12, 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bouganim et al. (US 2022/0138866) in view of Khoury et al. (US 2019/0026786)
Claim 12, 24: Bouganim discloses the system of claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose wherein the user interface includes one of a dashboard, a badge, and color-coded tiers. However, Khoury discloses wherein the user interface includes one of a dashboard, a badge, and color-coded tiers. [0076]
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify, Bouganim to include wherein the user interface includes one of a dashboard, a badge, and color-coded tiers, in order to be accessed and engaged with by a user. ([0076], Khoury)
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Baldwin et al. (US 2014/0244335) - Techniques for analyzing a social graph of a social networking service to derive a social proximity score representing a measure of how socially connected a member is to a target entity are described. With some embodiments, for each member of the social networking service in a pre-defined group of members, a social proximity score is derived to reflect a measure of how socially connected the member is to a target entity (e.g., company, school, government institution, or some other organization). The social proximity score for each member-target entity pairing may be based on a variety of factors derived from analyzing the social graph, member profile information, and in some instances, the activity and behavior of the members.
Daboll et al. ( US 2011/0208585) - Exemplary systems and methods for measurement of engagement are provided. In various embodiments, a method coprises receiving business objectives of a web site or online publisher on a server, tracking user frequency and user activities for a predetermine time, computing and ranking engagement scores with the web site based on the tracked user frequency as a function of user action categories for the predetermined time and business objectives, the user action categories being associated with the user activities, segmenting users based the engagement scores, and directing an advertisement to a user of at least one user segment.
Hui et al. (US 2019/0073596) - Certain example embodiments described herein relate to techniques for determining the effectiveness of social media content posted to a particular network location. An example technique includes receiving a set of social media content records posted to a network location and one or more user reaction records posted in response to the social media content record, associating at least one emotion token with each received user reaction record, assigning at least one emotion category to each social media content record, obtaining one or more engagement metrics for each social media content record, and determining a relationship between at least one engagement metric and at least one emotion category based upon the obtained one or more engagement metrics and the assigned at least one emotion category of respective social media content records in the set.
Ramachandran et al. (US 2019/0373071) - [0080] In some implementations, user engagement module 122 can determine an engagement level score based on the engagement category scores described above. For example, user engagement module 122 can combine the scores (e.g., calculate the sum, average, weighted average, etc.) determined for the recency category, frequency category, duration category, breadth category, and consistency categories described above. Based on the combination, user engagement module 122 can determine the engagement level score. For example, if the engagement categories are scored 1-5, when the sum of the engagement category scores is 22-25, user engagement module 122 can determine that the user engaged with news application 104 at a high level (e.g., corresponding to high user engagement lifecycle stage/segment 442). When the sum of the engagement category scores is 14-21, user engagement module 122 can determine that the user engaged with news application 104 at a medium level (e.g., corresponding to medium user engagement lifecycle stage/segment 440). When the sum of the engagement category scores is 5-13, user engagement module 122 can determine that the user engaged with news application 104 at a low level (e.g., corresponding to low user engagement lifecycle stage/segment 438).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DARNELL A POUNCIL whose telephone number is (571)270-3509. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 10:00 - 6:00.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ilana Spar can be reached at (571) 270-7537. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/D.A.P/Examiner, Art Unit 3622
/ILANA L SPAR/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3622