AIA
DETAILED ACTION
STATUS OF CLAIM
Claims 1-21 examined.
PNG
media_image1.png
215
285
media_image1.png
Greyscale
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.
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. The Claim(s) is/are directed to one or more abstract idea(s). The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea(s).
Step 1
The claims fall within the four 101 statutory categories (1 process 9 process 15 article of manufacture).
Step 2a
The invention is Organizing Human Activity.
Applicant takes an idea and then applies it with generic additional elements generally applied --with computer.
Exemplary Claim 1 (9 15 similar)
101
CLAIM 1
1. A [computer-implemented] method for facilitating user interaction in a social media platform, the method comprising the steps of:
O generating a [digital] environment defined as a bubble, associated with at least one user account
O enabling a plurality of users to access and interact within the bubble
O enabling the users to share multimedia content within the bubble
O initiating gamified events within the bubble, the events being defined by parameters such as time constraints or participation metrics
O issuing [digital] rewards to one or more users based on their participation in the gamified events.
[Generic additional element]
+
Abstract idea
Certain Methods Of Organizing Human Behavior
Alice
clearinghouse
computer implemented
Bilski
hedge
computer implemented
Ultramercial
Advertising
computer implemented
Here
Organizing human behavior
computer implemented
The claims recite collecting social media behavior, user is paid with an incentive. This is Organizing Human Behavior,
1) managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people.
2) fundamental economic practice and a commercial interaction.
3) long-standing commercial practice.
See NPL: A Complete History of Influencer Marketing”, by Brian Wallace, September 5, 2017 which points out incentives to a person who promotes, provides feedback on a product in a social network. This long standing commercial practice goes back HUNDREDS OF YEARS, although those social networks didn’t have computers. Here, the feedback is via electronic social media - Facebook® or the like. Here, the innovative concept is an abstract idea using additional elements which are generic and generally applied, a social network using a computer. These additional elements do not add significantly more.
19200546
192000546
Electric Power Grp (CAFC 2016)
CLAIM 1
1. A [computer-implemented] method for facilitating user interaction in a social media platform, the method comprising the steps of:
O generating a [digital] environment defined as a bubble, associated with at least one user account
O enabling a plurality of users to access and interact within the bubble
O enabling the users to share multimedia content within the bubble
O initiating gamified events within the bubble, the events being defined by parameters such as time constraints or participation metrics
O issuing [digital] rewards to one or more users based on their participation in the gamified events.
PNG
media_image2.png
815
512
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Collecting data
Analyze it
Display
certain
results
Here, the data relates to marketing, instead of investment there (SAP America v InvestPic (CAFC 2018) p.10 slip opinion). It is CERTAIN METHODS OF ORGANIZING HUMAN ACTIVITY. It’s fundamental economics and long-standing commercial practice.
The independent claims implement the abstract idea by generic computer, generic storage, generic storage, processor. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claims are directed to an abstract idea with additional generic computer elements do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they would be generic in any computer implementation. The claims in ordered combination are just the abstract idea implemented on a computer, the ordered combination “spelling out” how to computer implement it, Intellectual Ventures.
Similar to the clearinghouse in Alice and the computer implemented hedge in Bilski, here the idea is applied generally as pointed out by Applicant’s Specification.
Prong 1 answered “YES”, the next question in Prong 2 is whether there is an integrated practical application. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
Applicant takes an idea and then applies it with generic additional elements generally applied --with computer.
In particular, the claim recites additional element – e.g. computer implemented, sever, blockchain, medium, computing device, processor to perform the claim steps. The elements are recited at a high-level of generality (e.g. generic processor performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application for lack of any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Applicant uses steps that can be done in the mind followed by extra-solution activity. The steps are computer-implemented, but one could do the calculations and marketing determinations with pen and paper, abacus, slide-rule etc. The additional elements present only a particular technological environment.
The additional elements are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claims do not provide improvements to another technology or technical field, improvements to the functioning of the computer itself, and do not provide meaningful limitations beyond general linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. The limitations (those beyond the abstract idea) do not improve the technical field that the abstract idea limitations invoke. Moreover, these generic limitations do not constitute significantly more because they are simply an attempt to limit the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, not meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. See Alice Corp p 16 of slip op. 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 561 US at 610).
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional technical elements above do not integrate the abstract idea/judicial exception into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. More specifically, the additional elements fail to include (1) improvements to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field (see MPEP 2106.05(a)), (2) applying or using a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition (see Vanda memo), (3) applying the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine (see MPEP 2106.05(b)), (4) effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (see MPEP 2106.05(c)), or (5) applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (see MPEP 2106.05(e) and Vanda memo).
Rather, the limitations merely add 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 (see MPEP 2106.05(f)), or generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Thus, the claims are “directed to” an abstract idea (i.e. “PEG” Revised Step 2A Prong Two=Yes)
Dependent claims
CLAIM 1 (9 15 similar)
1. A computer-implemented method for facilitating user interaction in a social media platform, the method comprising the steps of:
O generating a digital environment defined as a bubble, associated with at least one user account;
O enabling a plurality of users to access and interact within the bubble;
O enabling the users to share multimedia content within the bubble;
O initiating gamified events within the bubble, the events being defined by parameters such as time constraints or participation metrics;
O issuing digital rewards to one or more users based on their participation in the gamified events.
Examiner
See above
CLAIM 2
2. The method of claim 1, wherein the [digital] rewards include blockchain-based tokens redeemable within the platform ecosystem.
Examiner
Idea itself albeit computer implemented with generic elements generally applied
CLAIM 3
3. The method of claim 1, wherein the gamified events include a bubble race requiring users to perform a predefined action faster than other participants.
Examiner
Idea itself albeit computer implemented with generic elements generally applied
CLAIM 4
4. The method of claim 1, wherein the gamified events include a randomized bubble raffle wherein winners are selected from eligible users based on engagement.
Examiner
Idea itself albeit computer implemented with generic elements generally applied
CLAIM 5
5. The method of claim 1, further comprising assigning user roles within a bubble, selected from the group consisting of creator, moderator, and participant.
Examiner
Idea itself albeit computer implemented with generic elements generally applied
CLAIM 6
6. The method of claim 1, wherein multimedia content includes text, video, images, hyperlinks, or embedded third-party content.
Examiner
Idea itself albeit computer implemented with generic elements generally applied
CLAIM 7
7. The method of claim 1, wherein each bubble includes expiration metadata defining a duration of activity after which the bubble becomes archived.
Examiner
Idea itself albeit computer implemented with generic elements generally applied
CLAIM 8
8. The method of claim 1, wherein users receive achievement badges or NFT collectibles upon completion of specific bubble milestones.
Examiner
Idea itself
CLAIM 9
9. A social media platform system, comprising:
a server configured to manage a plurality of user accounts and digital bubbles;
a user interface module configured to allow users to create, join, and interact within said bubbles;
a gamification engine for hosting events selected from the group consisting of content challenges, races, and raffles;
a blockchain-based reward module configured to issue tokens, non-fungible tokens (NFTs), or cryptocurrency based on user interactions; and
a privacy control engine configured to assign content-specific visibility settings independent of user account-wide settings.
Examiner
Idea itself albeit computer implemented with generic elements generally applied
CLAIM 10
10. The system of claim 9, wherein the gamification engine is further configured to dynamically adjust event difficulty based on user participation rates.
Examiner
Idea itself
CLAIM 11
11. The system of claim 9, wherein the privacy control engine permits setting visibility levels for each piece of content as public, private, friends-only, or bubble-limited.
Examiner
Idea itself
CLAIM 12
12. The system of claim 9, wherein the blockchain-based reward module interfaces with a smart contract deployed on a public or private distributed ledger.
Examiner
Idea itself albeit computer implemented with generic elements generally applied
CLAIM 13
13. The system of claim 9, further comprising an analytics engine configured to generate user engagement reports based on bubble activity.
Examiner
Idea itself albeit computer implemented with generic elements generally applied
CLAIM 14
14. The system of claim 9, wherein the user interface module includes tools for customizing the appearance, theme, and rules of each bubble.
Examiner
Idea itself albeit computer implemented with generic elements generally applied
CLAIM 15
15. A non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions that, when executed by one or more processors, cause a computing device to perform a method comprising:
O receiving user input to create a bubble within a social media application;
O enabling content submission and collaborative interaction within the bubble by other users;
O recording user engagement and performance metrics associated with bubble-related tasks;
O distributing digital assets to users based on predefined rules governing the bubble activities;
O maintaining a cryptographic record of the issued rewards on a distributed ledger.
Examiner
Idea itself albeit computer implemented with generic elements generally applied
CLAIM 16
16. The system of claim 15, wherein the instructions further cause the device to provide real-time notifications to users upon triggering gamified events.
Examiner
Idea itself
CLAIM 17
17. The system of claim 15, wherein the cryptographic record includes a hash of the engagement activity and the corresponding user identifier.
Examiner
Idea itself albeit computer implemented with generic elements generally applied
CLAIM 18
18. The system of claim 15, wherein the method includes validating user participation before issuing a reward, based on integrity constraints defined by a smart contract.
Examiner
Idea itself albeit
CLAIM 19
19. The system of claim 15, wherein the content submission step includes automated moderation using a content filtering engine.
Examiner
Idea itself albeit computer implemented with generic elements generally applied
CLAIM 20
20. The system of claim 15, wherein bubble-related tasks include collaborative creation of multimedia projects with attribution tracking.
Examiner
Idea itself albeit computer implemented with generic elements generally applied
CLAIM 21
21. Comments on additional claims that could be considered
Examiner
abstract idea
Step 2b
Applicant takes an idea and then applies it with generic additional elements generally applied.
Viewed as a whole, the claim elements do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The claim limitations do not improve upon the technical field that the abstract idea is applied nor do they improve upon any other technical field. The claimed limitations do not improve upon the functioning of the computer itself. Therefore, the claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
The additional element(s) or combination of elements in the claim(s) other than the abstract idea amount(s) to a ‘computer’ ‘which use generic elements, MPEP 2016.05(d).
The claim limitations alone or in ordered combination do not improve upon the technical field to which the abstract idea is applied nor do they improve upon any other technical field. The claimed limitations do not improve upon the functioning of any device itself.
The additional elements alone or in combination are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claims do not provide improvements to another technology or technical field, improvements to the functioning of the computer itself, and do not provide meaningful limitations beyond generic linking use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Additionally, the claims are directed to an abstract idea with additional generic computer elements that do not add meaningful limitations to the abstract idea because they require no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer functions that are generic activities previously known to the industry. Moreover, these generic limitations do not lead to an integrated practical application because they are simply an attempt to limit the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, not meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. See Alice Corp p 16 of slip op. 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 561 US at 610). Viewed as a whole, these additional claim elements do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claims amount to an integrated practical application. The claim limitations do not improve upon the technical field that the abstract idea is applied nor do they improve upon any other technical field. The claimed limitations do not improve upon the functioning of the computer itself.
Moreover, these generic limitations do not constitute significantly more because they are simply an attempt to limit the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, not meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. See Alice Corp p 16 of slip op. 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 561 US at 610).
Moreover, mere recitation of a machine or medium in the preamble does not make a claim statutory under 35 U.S.C. 101, as seen in the Board of Patent Appeals Informative Opinion Ex Parte Langemyr (Appeal 2008-1495). Moreover, mere mention of a piece of a computer or processing device does not confer patentability. Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v CLS Bank International ("Alice Corp") 573 US __ (2014). Incorporating the two-step test espoused in its recent decision in Mayo v. Prometheus 566 U.S. ___ (2012), the Court describes a first inquiry as to whether the claims at issue are directed to a patent-ineligible concept. If so, the Court requires a second inquiry as to whether the elements, individually or in combination, “transform” the nature of the claims into a patent-eligible invention. The Court described this second step as a search for an inventive concept, “i.e., an element or combination sufficient to ensure that the patent in practice amounts to significantly more than a patent upon the [ineligible concept] itself.”
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements merely detail generic elements that implement the abstract idea. The generically recited computer elements do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea. The additional element merely instruct that the execution of the abreact idea occurs on other generic technology, but does not offer any disclosure of any additional technology beyond the abstract idea itself. Moreover, the claim steps as an ordered combination do not present significantly more. The claims are not directed to an improvement in computer functionality like in Enfish v Microsoft, but rather to an abstract idea. The claims "do nothing more than spell out what it means to 'apply it on a computer'”, Intellectual Ventures I 792 F.3d p1371 (citing Alice). Nowhere in the claims or specification is there any indication that the computer, processor, medium do something to improved hardware functionality.
The further elements of the claims are merely directed to further abstract ideas and in ordered combination pose a list of abstract ideas, and invoke merely as a tool what is generic. There is no improvement in these items, but rather they are invoked as a tool to solve a business problem (targeted marketing), not a technical problem.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements merely detail generic computer processors and software that implement the abstract idea. The generically recited computer elements do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they would be generic in any computer implementation. The additional element merely instruct that the execution of the abstract idea occurs on other generic technology, but does not offer any disclosure of any additional technology beyond the abstract idea itself. Moreover, the claim steps as an ordered combination do not present significantly more. The claims are not directed to an improvement in computer functionality like in Enfish v Microsoft, but rather to an abstract idea. The claims "do nothing more than spell out what it means to 'apply it on a computer'”, Intellectual Ventures I 792 F.3d p1371 (citing Alice). Nowhere in the claims or specification is there any indication that the computer, processor, storage do something nongeneric such that Applicant has improved computer functionality. Applicant presents an idea for which computers are invoked as a tool.
MPEP 2106d
The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity.
i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network); but see DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1258, 113 USPQ2d 1097, 1106 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ("Unlike the claims in Ultramercial, the claims at issue here specify how interactions with the Internet are manipulated to yield a desired result‐‐a result that overrides the routine and conventional sequence of events ordinarily triggered by the click of a hyperlink." (emphasis added));
ii. Performing repetitive calculations, Flook, 437 U.S. at 594, 198 USPQ2d at 199 (recomputing or readjusting alarm limit values); Bancorp Services v. Sun Life, 687 F.3d 1266, 1278, 103 USPQ2d 1425, 1433 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ("The computer required by some of Bancorp’s claims is employed only for its most basic function, the performance of repetitive calculations, and as such does not impose meaningful limits on the scope of those claims.");
iii. Electronic recordkeeping, Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208, 225, 110 USPQ2d 1984 (2014) (creating and maintaining "shadow accounts"); Ultramercial, 772 F.3d at 716, 112 USPQ2d at 1755 (updating an activity log);
iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93
“Generic computer implementation” is insufficient to transform a patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention (See Affinity Labs, _F.3d_, 120 U.S.P.Q.2d 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2016), citing Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2352, 2357) and more generally, “simply appending conventional steps specified at a high level of generality” to an abstract idea does not make that idea patentable (See Affinity Labs, _F.3d_, 120 U.S.P.Q.2d 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2016), citing Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1300). Moreover, “the use of generic computer elements like a microprocessor or user interface do not alone transform an otherwise abstract idea into patent-eligible subject matter (See FairWarning, 120 U.S.P.Q.2d. 1293, citing DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1256 (Fed. Cir. 2014)). As such, the additional elements of the claim do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they would be generic computer functions in any computer implementation. 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. See e.g. NPL: Microsoft Windows Server Licensing QRG (2012)), Wiley.
The Examiner notes simply implementing an abstract concept on a computer, without meaningful limitations to that concept, does not transform a patent-ineligible claim into a patent-eligible one (See Accenture, 728 F.3d 1336, 108 U.S.P.Q.2d 1173 (Fed. Cir. 2013), citing Bancorp, 687 F.3d at 1280), limiting the application of an abstract idea to one field of use does not necessarily guard against preempting all uses of the abstract idea (See Accenture, 728 F.3d 1336, 108 U.S.P.Q.2d 1173 (Fed. Cir. 2013), citing Bilski, 130 S. Ct. at 3231), and further the prohibition against patenting an abstract principle “cannot be circumvented by attempting to limit the use of the [principle] to a particular technological environment” (See Accenture, 728 F.3d 1336, 108 U.S.P.Q.2d 1173 (Fed. Cir. 2013), citing Flook, 437 U.S. at 584), and finally merely limiting the field of use of the abstract idea to a particular existing technological environment does not render the claims any less abstract (See Affinity Labs, _F.3d_, 120 U.S.P.Q.2d 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2016), citing Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2358; Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1294; Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 612 (2010); Content Extraction & Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, Nat’l Ass’n, 776 F.3d 1343, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2014); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2014).
To find some inventive concept, one can look to Applicant's own words in Spec ¶ 2, 9-20. There, he states the problem addressed is organizing human behavior.
Here, the claims neither improve the technological infrastructure nor provide particular solutions to challenges. Rather, in ordered combination the claim limitations spell out the steps of calculating using generic technology (storage, computer, storage, processor – at a high level of generality).
In addition to these indisputably generic features, Applicant did not invent any of those features, and the claims do not recite them in a manner that produces a result that overrides the generic use of these known features. DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1258 (Fed. Cir. 2014). When viewed as an ordered combination, the proposed claims recite no more than the sort of “perfectly” generic computer components employed in a customary manner that we have held insufficient to transform the abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention. Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2016). The claims fail step 2b too.
During prosecution, applicant has an opportunity and a duty to amend ambiguous claims to clearly and precisely define the metes and bounds of the claimed invention The claim places the public on notice of the scope of the patentee’s right to exclude See, eg, Johnson & Johnston Assoc Inc v RE Serv Co, 285 F3d 1046, 1052, 62 USPQ2d 1225, 1228 (Fed Cir 2002) (en banc) As stated in Halliburton Energy Servs, Inc v M-I LLC, 514 F3d 1244, 1255, 85 USPQ2d 1654, 1663 (CAFC 2008):
“We note that the patent drafter is in the best position to resolve the ambiguity in the patent claims, and it is highly desirable that patent examiners demand that applicants do so in appropriate circumstances so that the patent can be amended during prosecution rather than attempting to resolve the ambiguity in litigation”
CLAIM INTERPRETATION
35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Generic placeholders, e.g., module, engine (claim 9-14) invoke 112f.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112, b:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 21 (and dependents) is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112 (b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
CLAIM
21. Comments on additional claims that could be considered
As per claim 21 it is not clear what this means.
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.
Claim 21 rejected under 35 USC 102 as anticipated by Computerized Natural Language Processing With Insights Extraction Using Semantic Search Us 20230117206
CLAIM 21
21. Comments on additional claims that could be considered
COMPUTERIZED NATURAL LANGUAGE PROCESSING WITH INSIGHTS EXTRACTION USING SEMANTIC SEARCH US 20230117206 ¶ 72 89 shows suggestions for a claim
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following quotes 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for obviousness rejections in this Office Action:
A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made
Prior art reference text, Figs are below annotated, bold, italicized or underlined to map claim to reference.
MPEP 2123: “The use of patents as references is not limited to what the patentees describe as their own inventions or to the problems with which they are concerned. They are part of the literature of the art, relevant for all they contain.” In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331 (Fed. Cir. 1983) A reference may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill the art, including nonpreferred embodiments. Merck & Co. v. Biocraft Laboratories, 874 F.2d 804, 10 USPQ2d 1843 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 975 (1989).
Claims 1 6 8 rejected under 35 USC 103 as unpatentable since obvious over
Guminy US 20140019225 in view of
INCENTIVIZING FEEDBACK ON SOCIAL MEDIA US 20190340634
CLAIM 1
1.A computer-implemented method for facilitating user interaction in a social media platform, the method comprising the steps of:
PNG
media_image3.png
564
872
media_image3.png
Greyscale
O generating a digital environment defined as a bubble, associated with at least one user account (account ≈ Guminy profile ¶ 21 61 62 71 79 80-83)
Guminy shows
a physical server (Guminy Fig 1, 120) system comprising a social media aggregator (channel/influence tracking module Fig 2, 226 ¶ 53,56, Fig 1-2 aggregate and track data of customer and customer’s FF (Friends and Followers) at access points 108, 110, 112, 114; Fig 2 e.g. 210, 216, behavior collector, ¶ 19) implemented as one or more dedicated routines or modules executing within the system to access one or more social platforms (Guminy at least Fig 1) via network (Guminy at least Fig 1 ‘network’), to analyze (Guminy at least ¶ 3, 13, Fig 2 210, 216 analytics) the one or more social media platforms (Guminy at least Fig 1) with respect to criteria (Guminy at least ¶ 13, Fig 3) and to extract (Guminy at least Fig 2, 216) social media content meeting criteria (Guminy at least ¶ 3, 13, ¶ 19, Fig 2-3), (Guminy at least Fig 1), (Guminy at least ¶ 5 executable code) (Guminy at least ¶ 3-5, 32-35, 49, 52-53, 55-56)
O enabling a plurality of users to access and interact within the bubble
Guminy shows
[0003] A method includes detecting, via a processor, a social networking action by a user within a social networking website that positively references a marketplace offering of an entity; determining, in response to detecting the social networking interaction by the user, a social networking influence of the user based upon entity interactions by social network connections of the user with the entity via a plurality of entity access channels of the entity; determining whether the determined social networking influence of the user satisfies a reward threshold defined within a social networking influence incentive rule; and generating, in response to determining that the determined social networking influence of the user satisfies the incentive threshold defined within the social networking influence incentive rule, an incentive defined within the social networking influence incentive rule for the user.
[0053] A channel/influence tracking module 226 is usable by any device within a system, such as the system 100 of FIG. 1, that is configured to monitor and/or track any of the available multiple entity access channels (e.g., customer touch points). The channel/influence tracking module 226 is also usable by devices, such as the computing device.sub.--1 102 through the computing device_N 104 and the social networking server.sub.--1 116 through the social networking server_M 118 to collect social influence information useable by the social influence incentive server 120 to analyze the activities of the friends/followers of the users across the available multiple entity access channels. As described above, the social influence incentive server 120 may utilize the information gathered across the respective system and social networks using the influence-based incentive rules stored within the social networking influence incentive rules database 122. It should be noted that the channel/influence tracking module 226 is illustrated with a dashed-line representation within FIG. 2 to indicate that this module may be an optional component for the core processing module 200 for certain implementations/devices, such as the social influence incentive server 120. However, it should be noted that the social influence incentive server 120 may also be configured to directly collect information related to the social influence of users. The behavior collector module 218 of the social influence incentive module 216 may gather information collected by the channel/influence tracking module 226 for analysis and evaluation by the social influence incentive module 216.
[0056] The CPU 202, the display 204, the input device 206, the communication module 208, the memory 210, the social influence incentive module 216, the channel/influence tracking module 226, the timer/clock module 228, and the social networking influence incentive rules database 122 are interconnected via an interconnection 230. The interconnection 230 may include a system bus, a network, or any other interconnection capable of providing the respective components with suitable interconnection for the respective purpose.
[0013] … multi-channel, self-learning, social influence-based incentive generation. Social networking actions by a user within a social networking website that positively or negatively reference a marketplace offering of an entity (e.g., a product, service, promotional campaign, etc.) are detected. A social networking influence of the user is determined based upon event interactions by social network connections (e.g., friends, followers, etc.) of the user with the entity via a group of different forms of entity access channels of the entity, such as websites, call centers, kiosks, point of sale (POS) terminals, etc.). A determination is made as to whether the determined social networking influence of the user satisfies a reward threshold defined within a social networking influence incentive rule. An incentive defined within the social networking influence incentive rule for the user is generated in response to determining that the social networking influence of the user satisfies the incentive threshold defined within the social networking influence incentive rule. Changes in the social networking influence of the user over time may be determined and incentives may be adjusted to further incentivize increased social networking influence. Further, the effectiveness of generated incentives may be evaluated over time and adjusted, again to further incentivize increased social networking influence.
O enabling the users to share multimedia content within the bubble
Guminy shows
[0053] A channel/influence tracking module 226 is usable by any device within a system, such as the system 100 of FIG. 1, that is configured to monitor and/or track any of the available multiple entity access channels (e.g., customer touch points). The channel/influence tracking module 226 is also usable by devices, such as the computing device.sub.--1 102 through the computing device_N 104 and the social networking server.sub.--1 116 through the social networking server_M 118 to collect social influence information useable by the social influence incentive server 120 to analyze the activities of the friends/followers of the users across the available multiple entity access channels. As described above, the social influence incentive server 120 may utilize the information gathered across the respective system and social networks using the influence-based incentive rules stored within the social networking influence incentive rules database 122. It should be noted that the channel/influence tracking module 226 is illustrated with a dashed-line representation within FIG. 2 to indicate that this module may be an optional component for the core processing module 200 for certain implementations/devices, such as the social influence incentive server 120. However, it should be noted that the social influence incentive server 120 may also be configured to directly collect information related to the social influence of users. The behavior collector module 218 of the social influence incentive module 216 may gather information collected by the channel/influence tracking module 226 for analysis and evaluation by the social influence incentive module 216.
[0056] The CPU 202, the display 204, the input device 206, the communication module 208, the memory 210, the social influence incentive module 216, the channel/influence tracking module 226, the timer/clock module 228, and the social networking influence incentive rules database 122 are interconnected via an interconnection 230. The interconnection 230 may include a system bus, a network, or any other interconnection capable of providing the respective components with suitable interconnection for the respective purpose.
[0013] … multi-channel, self-learning, social influence-based incentive generation. Social networking actions by a user within a social networking website that positively or negatively reference a marketplace offering of an entity (e.g., a product, service, promotional campaign, etc.) are detected. A social networking influence of the user is determined based upon event interactions by social network connections (e.g., friends, followers, etc.) of the user with the entity via a group of different forms of entity access channels of the entity, such as websites, call centers, kiosks, point of sale (POS) terminals, etc.). A determination is made as to whether the determined social networking influence of the user satisfies a reward threshold defined within a social networking influence incentive rule. An incentive defined within the social networking influence incentive rule for the user is generated in response to determining that the social networking influence of the user satisfies the incentive threshold defined within the social networking influence incentive rule. Changes in the social networking influence of the user over time may be determined and incentives may be adjusted to further incentivize increased social networking influence. Further, the effectiveness of generated incentives may be evaluated over time and adjusted, again to further incentivize increased social networking influence.
[0014] As such, the present technology provides customized and relevant rewards for system users that SHARE information related to products, services, and other types of offerings (e.g., "checking in" on certain social network sites, social and/or political campaigns, etc.) on social networks. As such, the present technology assists businesses with directing more traffic and profits to their businesses. The present technology allows businesses to learn more about their customers and the effectiveness of their marketing initiatives, and allows businesses to learn more about the effectiveness of social networks within the context of the incentive approach described herein.
[0029] It should be noted that conception of the present subject matter resulted from recognition of certain limitations associated with advertising and advertising incentives. For example, it was observed that, while advertisers desire to increase sales, brand recognition, and market SHARE, previous advertisement approaches are limited with respect to the information provided to advertisers and problematic because different consumers often respond differently to the same incentives. Further, it was observed that advertisers are limited with respect to learning how different consumers respond to incentives that are provided. Additionally, it was observed that while people often "tweet" about experiences with retailers and other organizations (e.g., in-store, online shopping experiences, call center experiences, etc.) and SHARE this information on social media websites, there is no way within the previous/existing systems to correlate influence with respect to purchasing decisions for different types of users (e.g., celebrities with lots of followers versus users with small circles of friends) among their friends/followers. The present subject matter improves advertising and marketing by providing for influence-based incentive generation that is performed in response to programmatic determinations of user influence within social media circles and social networks. Additionally, multiple venues/channels of product acquisition are integrated and the processing described herein self-learns user influence patterns by analyzing responses (e.g., purchases, donations, etc.) across the varied multiple venues/channels by friends and followers of users that influence those responses. Users are further incentivized to influence friends in a highly-granular manner based upon their determined influence. The present technology enables businesses to offer the most desired and comprehensive incentives to different segments of their customers based upon higher determined influence. As such, improved advertising and marketing may be obtained through the multi-channel, self-learning, social influence-based incentive generation described herein.
[0049] Additionally, a reward rule module 220 is associated with the social influence incentive module 216 and allows definition of social networking influence incentive rules to specify conditions for rewarding certain customers/users. As described above, the defined social networking influence incentive rules may be stored within the social networking influence incentive rules database 122. A retailer, political campaign, or other entity may define a set of rules that determine when and what type of rewards the shopper/supporter would get from their social networking friends' activities based on the information available from different entity access channels. For example, a rule may be defined that specifies that if a social networking website user with a configurable number of followers/friends (e.g., ten thousand) on a particular social networking website "liked" the entity's product, service, or store, then the user is to be given a personalized call to thank him/her for good feedback on the particular product, service, or store. As another example, a rule may be defined that specifies that if a person dislikes a product from a competitor of the entity, an e-mail may be sent to this person with a coupon for a similar, but better, product or service provided by the entity. Another example rule may be defined that specifies that if a customer/supporter SHAREs a link to a certain product on an entity's website with his/her friends and a configurable number (e.g., ten) of friends click on this link and make a purchase, the customer/supporter may be sent a gift certificate valid in a physical store where customer/supporter often shops (e.g., based on collected channel information). Many other rules are possible and all are considered within the scope of the present subject matter. The reward rule module 220 may also be a pluggable framework when implemented as an application-level component executed by the CPU 202.
2ND REFERENCE
INCENTIVIZING FEEDBACK ON SOCIAL MEDIA US 20190340634
NOT EXPLICT IN Guminy is gamified
US 20190340634
O initiating gamified events within the bubble, the events being defined by parameters such as time constraints or participation metrics
INCENTIVIZING FEEDBACK ON SOCIAL MEDIA US 20190340634 Fig 4 & text, ¶ 38-39
PNG
media_image4.png
538
863
media_image4.png
Greyscale
O issuing digital rewards (Guminy Fig 4 issuing ≈ send incentive, as well as issuing ≈ allocate points in Fig 6 Paul INCENTIVIZING FEEDBACK ON SOCIAL MEDIA US 20190340634) to one or more users based on their participation in the gamified events
Guminy Fig 1 4 & text shows rewards for behavior
PNG
media_image5.png
614
448
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
619
434
media_image6.png
Greyscale
NOT EXPLICT IN Guminy is gamified
See 2ndary reference Paul Incentivizing Feedback on Social Media US 20190340634 at least Fig 4 & text
PNG
media_image4.png
538
863
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image7.png
409
691
media_image7.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious at the time of filing to combine primary and secondary reference; they are analogous to not only each other but also the claim -- all 3 social media sharing/interaction for reward. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been reasonably prompted to make the combination. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. Therefore all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. This is Combining Prior Art Elements According to Known Methods.
CLAIM 6
6. The method of claim 1, wherein
O multimedia content includes text, video, images, hyperlinks, or embedded third-party content.
Incentivizing Feedback On Social MEDIA US20190340634 at least ¶ 31
CLAIM 8
8. The method of claim 1, wherein
O users receive achievement badges or NFT collectibles upon completion of specific bubble milestones.
Guminy at least Fig 3-4 & text, ¶ 3
also
Paul Incentivizing Feedback On Social Media US20190340634 at least Fig 6
Claims 2-5 rejected under 35 USC 103 as obvious over
Guminy US 20140019225 In View Of
Incentivizing Feedback On Social Media Us 20190340634 In View Of
Cryptographic Content Us 20230114684
CLAIM 2
NOT EXPLICT IN Guminy
2. The method of claim 1, wherein the
O digital rewards include blockchain-based tokens redeemable within the platform ecosystem.
¶ 64 redeemable token also ¶ 69 72 72 240
Cryptographic Content US 20230114684 ¶ 23 creator
Cryptographic Content US 20230114684 ¶ 23 ¶ 240 participant
Cryptographic Content US 20230114684 ¶ 240 game (raffle)
It would have been obvious at the time of filing to combine primary and 3rd reference Cryptographic Content US 20230114684 -- analogous to not only each other but also the claim. All the cited references and the application are rewards for online behavior schemes. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been reasonably prompted to make the combination. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. Therefore all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. This is Combining Prior Art Elements According to Known Methods.
CLAIM 3
NOT EXPLICT IN Guminy
3. The method of claim 1, wherein the
O gamified events include a bubble race requiring users to perform a predefined action faster than other participants.
US 20230114684 ¶ 240 game (raffle), ¶ race ¶ 350
It would have been obvious at the time of filing to combine primary and 3rd reference Cryptographic Content US 20230114684 -- analogous to not only each other but also the claim. All the cited references and the application are rewards for online behavior schemes. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been reasonably prompted to make the combination. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. Therefore all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. This is Combining Prior Art Elements According to Known Methods.
CLAIM 4
NOT EXPLICT IN Guminy
4. The method of claim 1, wherein the
O gamified events include a randomized bubble raffle wherein winners are selected from eligible users based on engagement.
US 20230114684 ¶ 240 game (raffle)
It would have been obvious at the time of filing to combine primary and 3rd reference Cryptographic Content US 20230114684 -- analogous to not only each other but also the claim. All the cited references and the application are rewards for online behavior schemes. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been reasonably prompted to make the combination. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. Therefore all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. This is Combining Prior Art Elements According to Known Methods.
CLAIM 5
NOT EXPLICT IN Guminy
5. The method of claim 1, further comprising
O assigning user roles within a bubble, selected from the group consisting of creator, moderator, and participant.
Cryptographic Content US 20230114684 ¶ 23 creator
Cryptographic Content US 20230114684 ¶ 23 ¶ 240 participant
It would have been obvious at the time of filing to combine primary and 3rd reference Cryptographic Content US 20230114684 -- analogous to not only each other but also the claim. All the cited references and the application are rewards for online behavior schemes. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been reasonably prompted to make the combination. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. Therefore all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. This is Combining Prior Art Elements According to Known Methods.
Claims 7 rejected under 35 USC 103 as obvious over
Guminy US 20140019225 In View Of
INCENTIVIZING FEEDBACK ON SOCIAL MEDIA US 20190340634 In View Of
Promoting And Viewing Social Content Written By Nearby People US 9954929
CLAIM 7
NOT EXPLICT IN Promoting And Viewing Social Content Written By Nearby People US 9954929
7. The method of claim 1, wherein each
O bubble includes expiration metadata defining a duration of activity after which the bubble becomes archived.
Promoting And Viewing Social Content Written By Nearby People US 9954929
Fig 3 & text, expiration step 307
It would have been obvious at the time of filing to combine primary and 3rd reference Promoting And Viewing Social Content Written By Nearby People US 9954929 -- analogous to not only each other but also the claim. All the cited references and the application are online social media schemes, and all 3 references and application are titled “Social …”. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been reasonably prompted to make the combination. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. Therefore all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary
Claims rejected under 35 USC 103 as obvious over
Guminy US 20140019225 in view of
Incentivizing Feedback On Social Media Us 20190340634 In View Of
Cryptographic Content Us 20230114684
Privacy Transaction Processing US 20210184835
CLAIM 9
9. A social media platform system, comprising:
PNG
media_image3.png
564
872
media_image3.png
Greyscale
O a server configured to manage a plurality of user accounts and digital bubbles
(account ≈ Guminy profile ¶ 21 61 62 71 79 80-83)
Guminy shows
a physical SERVER (Guminy Fig 1, 120) system comprising a social media aggregator (channel/influence tracking module Fig 2, 226 ¶ 53,56, Fig 1-2 aggregate and track data of customer and customer’s FF (Friends and Followers) at access points 108, 110, 112, 114; Fig 2 e.g. 210, 216, behavior collector, ¶ 19) implemented as one or more dedicated routines or modules executing within the system to access one or more social platforms (Guminy at least Fig 1) via network (Guminy at least Fig 1 ‘network’), to analyze (Guminy at least ¶ 3, 13, Fig 2 210, 216 analytics) the one or more social media platforms (Guminy at least Fig 1) with respect to criteria (Guminy at least ¶ 13, Fig 3) and to extract (Guminy at least Fig 2, 216) social media content meeting criteria (Guminy at least ¶ 3, 13, ¶ 19, Fig 2-3), (Guminy at least Fig 1), (Guminy at least ¶ 5 executable code) (Guminy at least ¶ 3-5, 32-35, 49, 52-53, 55-56)
O a user interface module configured to allow users to create, join, and interact within said bubbles
Guminy Fig 1-2 & text
Guminy
Abstract
A social networking action by a user within a social networking website that positively references a marketplace offering of an entity is detected by a processor. In response to detecting the social networking interaction by the user, a social networking influence of the user is determined based upon entity interactions by social network connections of the user with the entity by a number of entity access channels of the entity. A determination is made as to whether the determined social networking influence of the user satisfies a reward threshold defined within a social networking influence incentive rule. In response to determining that the determined social networking influence of the user satisfies the incentive threshold defined within the social networking influence incentive rule, an incentive defined within the social networking influence incentive rule is generated for the user.
Paul Incentivizing Feedback On Social Media US 20190340634
Abstract
The present approach is related to incentivizing users of social media to provide feedback for certain products. The embodiments include monitoring relevant social media content that includes feedback associated with the products, where the social media content is created by different users via social media profiles. Evaluation rules are applied to the social media content to allocate a number points to the social media profiles every time relevant social media is created. When a certain threshold of accumulated points has been exceeded by a user, the user is further incentivized to continue to provide feedback to products via social media, where the incentive includes a form of a reward.
[0036] In some embodiments, social media profiles 314 of different social media platforms 312 are created separately, even if they are managed by a common user. That is, if a user creates social media content 302 using a first social media profile 314 on a first social media platform 312, then subsequently creates social media content 302 using a second social media profile 314 on a second social media platform 312, the records 306 may assign a first set of information to the first social media profile 314 and a second set of information to the second social media profile 314, as it may not be readily apparent that a single user is associated with both profiles. In additional or in alternative embodiments, social media profiles 314 of different social media platforms may be consolidated if they are managed by a common user and this can be readily determined. That is, social media content 302 created by a user via a first social media profile 314 on a first social media platform 312 and social media content 302 created by the user via a second social media profile 314 on a second social media platform 312 may be consolidated as if both social media contents 302 were created by a single social media profile 314.
It would have been obvious at the time of filing to combine primary and Paul Incentivizing Feedback On Social Media US 20190340634 -- analogous to not only each other but also the claim. All the cited references and the application are online social media schemes, and all 3 references and application are titled “Social …”. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been reasonably prompted to make the combination. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. Therefore all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary
O a gamification engine for hosting events selected from the group consisting of content challenges, races, and raffles
NOT EXPLICT IN Guminy is gamified
See 2ndary reference Paul Incentivizing Feedback on Social Media US 20190340634 at least Fig 4 game & text
PNG
media_image4.png
538
863
media_image4.png
Greyscale
3rd reference Cryptographic Content US 20230114684
NOT EXPLICT IN Guminy is
O a blockchain-based reward module configured to issue tokens, non-fungible tokens (NFTs), or cryptocurrency based on user interactions and
Cryptographic content US 20230114684 ¶ 64 ¶ 69 72 72 240
Cryptographic content US 20230114684 ¶ 23 creator
Cryptographic content US 20230114684 ¶ 23 ¶ 240 participant
Cryptographic content US 20230114684 ¶ 240 game (raffle, ¶ 101, ¶ 350 race); challenges, races, raffles ≈ games
It would have been obvious at the time of filing to combine primary and 3rd reference Cryptographic Content US 20230114684 -- analogous to not only each other but also the claim. All the cited references and the application are rewards for online behavior schemes. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been reasonably prompted to make the combination. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. Therefore all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. This is Combining Prior Art Elements According to Known Methods.
4th reference PRIVACY TRANSACTION PROCESSING US 20210184835
NOT EXPLICT IN Guminy
O a privacy control engine configured to assign content-specific visibility settings independent of user account-wide settings.
PRIVACY TRANSACTION PROCESSING
US 20210184835
[0025] The privacy organization refers to a set of nodes in the blockchain network used to process a certain or some privacy business transaction requests. Optionally, one node may belong to different privacy organizations, and different privacy organizations may process different privacy business transaction requests. Further, the privacy content included in the privacy business transaction request is visible to the nodes in the privacy organization to which the request belongs, but invisible to nodes outside the privacy organization.
It would have been obvious at the time of filing to combine Guminy, Privacy Transaction Processing
US 20210184835; they are analogous to not only each other but also the claim. Guminy, base device, is silent on the limitation (visibility settings) but ripe for improvement with a known technique. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been reasonably prompted to make the combination. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. Therefore all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. This is Applying Known Technique to Known Art Ready for Improvement.
CLAIM 11
NOT EXPLICT IN Guminy
11. The system of claim 9, wherein the
O privacy control engine permits setting visibility levels for each piece of content as public, private, friends-only, or bubble-limited.
PRIVACY TRANSACTION PROCESSING
US 20210184835
[0025] The privacy organization refers to a set of nodes in the blockchain network used to process a certain or some privacy business transaction requests. Optionally, one node may belong to different privacy organizations, and different privacy organizations may process different privacy business transaction requests. Further, the privacy content included in the privacy business transaction request is visible to the nodes in the privacy organization to which the request belongs, but invisible to nodes outside the privacy organization.
It would have been obvious at the time of filing to combine Guminy, Privacy Transaction Processing
US 20210184835; they are analogous to not only each other but also the claim. Guminy, base device, is silent on the limitation (visibility settings) but ripe for improvement with a known technique. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been reasonably prompted to make the combination. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. Therefore all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. This is Applying Known Technique to Known Art Ready for Improvement.
CLAIM 12
12. The system of claim 9, wherein the
O blockchain-based reward module interfaces with a smart contract deployed on a public or private distributed ledger.
Cryptographic Content US 20230114684 ¶s 65 76 92 94 157
Claims rejected under unpatentable under 35 USC 103 b/c obvious over
Guminy US 20140019225 in view of
Incentivizing Feedback On Social Media US 20190340634 in view of
Cryptographic Content US 20230114684 in view of
Privacy Transaction Processing US 20210184835 in view of
Interaction In Live Streaming US 20220377425
CLAIM 10
10. The system of claim 9, wherein the
O gamification engine is further configured to dynamically adjust event difficulty based on user participation rates.
INTERACTION IN LIVE STREAMING
US 20220377425 ¶ 46
It would have been obvious at the time of filing to combine Guminy, Interaction In Live Streaming
US 20220377425; they are analogous to not only each other but also the claim. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been reasonably prompted to make the combination. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. Therefore all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. It would have been obvious from Guminy incentive that interest in Guminy depends on user interest; too easy would not maintain user participation. This is Design Incentives or Market Forces Prompting Variations.
Claims 13 rejected under 35 USC 103 as obvious over
Guminy US 20140019225 in view of
Incentivizing Feedback On Social Media US 20190340634 in view of
Cryptographic Content US 20230114684 in view of
Privacy Transaction Processing US 20210184835 in view of
Interaction In Live Streaming US 20220377425 in view of
Target Web And Social Media Messaging Based On Event Signals US 11762934
CLAIM 13
13. The system of claim 9, further comprising an
O analytics engine configured to generate user engagement reports based on bubble activity.
Target Web And Social Media Messaging Based On Event Signals
US 11762934 11:43-55
It would have been obvious at the time of filing to combine Guminy, Target Web And Social Media Messaging Based On Event Signals US 11762934 ; they are analogous to not only each other but also the claim. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been reasonably prompted to make the combination. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. Therefore all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. This is Combining Prior Art Elements According to Known Methods.
Claims 14 rejected under 35 USC 103 as obvious over
Guminy US 20140019225 in view of
Incentivizing Feedback On Social Media US 20190340634 in view of
Cryptographic Content US 20230114684 in view of
Privacy Transaction Processing US 20210184835 in view of
Integrated Framework US 20160239531
CLAIM 14
14. The system of claim 9, wherein the
O user interface module includes tools for customizing the appearance, theme, and rules of each bubble.
Guminy rules ¶ 21
NOT EXPLICT IN Guminy appearance theme
US 20160239531 ¶ 21 22 30 34
It would have been obvious at the time of filing to combine Guminy, US 20160239531; they are analogous to not only each other but also the claim. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been reasonably prompted to make the combination. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. Therefore all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. This is Combining Prior Art Elements According to Known Methods.
Claims 15 18 20 rejected under 35 USC 103 as obvious over
Gumny US 20140019225 in view of
Target Web And Social Media Messaging Based On Event Signals US 11762934 in view of
Cryptographic Content US20230114684
CLAIM 15
15. A non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions that, when executed by one or more processors, cause a computing device to perform a method comprising:
O receiving user input to create a bubble within a social media application
PNG
media_image3.png
564
872
media_image3.png
Greyscale
O generating a digital environment defined as a bubble, associated with at least one user account (account ≈ Guminy profile ¶ 21 61 62 71 79 80-83)
Guminy shows
a physical server (Guminy Fig 1, 120) system comprising a social media aggregator (channel/influence tracking module Fig 2, 226 ¶ 53,56, Fig 1-2 aggregate and track data of customer and customer’s FF (Friends and Followers) at access points 108, 110, 112, 114; Fig 2 e.g. 210, 216, behavior collector, ¶ 19) implemented as one or more dedicated routines or modules executing within the system to access one or more social platforms (Guminy at least Fig 1) via network (Guminy at least Fig 1 ‘network’), to analyze (Guminy at least ¶ 3, 13, Fig 2 210, 216 analytics) the one or more social media platforms (Guminy at least Fig 1) with respect to criteria (Guminy at least ¶ 13, Fig 3) and to extract (Guminy at least Fig 2, 216) social media content meeting criteria (Guminy at least ¶ 3, 13, ¶ 19, Fig 2-3), (Guminy at least Fig 1), (Guminy at least ¶ 5 executable code) (Guminy at least ¶ 3-5, 32-35, 49, 52-53, 55-56)
O enabling content submission and collaborative interaction within the bubble by other users
Guminy shows
[0003] A method includes detecting, via a processor, a social networking action by a user within a social networking website that positively references a marketplace offering of an entity; determining, in response to detecting the social networking interaction by the user, a social networking influence of the user based upon entity interactions by social network connections of the user with the entity via a plurality of entity access channels of the entity; determining whether the determined social networking influence of the user satisfies a reward threshold defined within a social networking influence incentive rule; and generating, in response to determining that the determined social networking influence of the user satisfies the incentive threshold defined within the social networking influence incentive rule, an incentive defined within the social networking influence incentive rule for the user.
[0053] A channel/influence tracking module 226 is usable by any device within a system, such as the system 100 of FIG. 1, that is configured to monitor and/or track any of the available multiple entity access channels (e.g., customer touch points). The channel/influence tracking module 226 is also usable by devices, such as the computing device.sub.--1 102 through the computing device_N 104 and the social networking server.sub.--1 116 through the social networking server_M 118 to collect social influence information useable by the social influence incentive server 120 to analyze the activities of the friends/followers of the users across the available multiple entity access channels. As described above, the social influence incentive server 120 may utilize the information gathered across the respective system and social networks using the influence-based incentive rules stored within the social networking influence incentive rules database 122. It should be noted that the channel/influence tracking module 226 is illustrated with a dashed-line representation within FIG. 2 to indicate that this module may be an optional component for the core processing module 200 for certain implementations/devices, such as the social influence incentive server 120. However, it should be noted that the social influence incentive server 120 may also be configured to directly collect information related to the social influence of users. The behavior collector module 218 of the social influence incentive module 216 may gather information collected by the channel/influence tracking module 226 for analysis and evaluation by the social influence incentive module 216.
[0056] The CPU 202, the display 204, the input device 206, the communication module 208, the memory 210, the social influence incentive module 216, the channel/influence tracking module 226, the timer/clock module 228, and the social networking influence incentive rules database 122 are interconnected via an interconnection 230. The interconnection 230 may include a system bus, a network, or any other interconnection capable of providing the respective components with suitable interconnection for the respective purpose.
[0013] … multi-channel, self-learning, social influence-based incentive generation. Social networking actions by a user within a social networking website that positively or negatively reference a marketplace offering of an entity (e.g., a product, service, promotional campaign, etc.) are detected. A social networking influence of the user is determined based upon event interactions by social network connections (e.g., friends, followers, etc.) of the user with the entity via a group of different forms of entity access channels of the entity, such as websites, call centers, kiosks, point of sale (POS) terminals, etc.). A determination is made as to whether the determined social networking influence of the user satisfies a reward threshold defined within a social networking influence incentive rule. An incentive defined within the social networking influence incentive rule for the user is generated in response to determining that the social networking influence of the user satisfies the incentive threshold defined within the social networking influence incentive rule. Changes in the social networking influence of the user over time may be determined and incentives may be adjusted to further incentivize increased social networking influence. Further, the effectiveness of generated incentives may be evaluated over time and adjusted, again to further incentivize increased social networking influence.
Guminy shows
[0053] A channel/influence tracking module 226 is usable by any device within a system, such as the system 100 of FIG. 1, that is configured to monitor and/or track any of the available multiple entity access channels (e.g., customer touch points). The channel/influence tracking module 226 is also usable by devices, such as the computing device.sub.--1 102 through the computing device_N 104 and the social networking server.sub.--1 116 through the social networking server_M 118 to collect social influence information useable by the social influence incentive server 120 to analyze the activities of the friends/followers of the users across the available multiple entity access channels. As described above, the social influence incentive server 120 may utilize the information gathered across the respective system and social networks using the influence-based incentive rules stored within the social networking influence incentive rules database 122. It should be noted that the channel/influence tracking module 226 is illustrated with a dashed-line representation within FIG. 2 to indicate that this module may be an optional component for the core processing module 200 for certain implementations/devices, such as the social influence incentive server 120. However, it should be noted that the social influence incentive server 120 may also be configured to directly collect information related to the social influence of users. The behavior collector module 218 of the social influence incentive module 216 may gather information collected by the channel/influence tracking module 226 for analysis and evaluation by the social influence incentive module 216.
[0056] The CPU 202, the display 204, the input device 206, the communication module 208, the memory 210, the social influence incentive module 216, the channel/influence tracking module 226, the timer/clock module 228, and the social networking influence incentive rules database 122 are interconnected via an interconnection 230. The interconnection 230 may include a system bus, a network, or any other interconnection capable of providing the respective components with suitable interconnection for the respective purpose.
[0013] … multi-channel, self-learning, social influence-based incentive generation. Social networking actions by a user within a social networking website that positively or negatively reference a marketplace offering of an entity (e.g., a product, service, promotional campaign, etc.) are detected. A social networking influence of the user is determined based upon event interactions by social network connections (e.g., friends, followers, etc.) of the user with the entity via a group of different forms of entity access channels of the entity, such as websites, call centers, kiosks, point of sale (POS) terminals, etc.). A determination is made as to whether the determined social networking influence of the user satisfies a reward threshold defined within a social networking influence incentive rule. An incentive defined within the social networking influence incentive rule for the user is generated in response to determining that the social networking influence of the user satisfies the incentive threshold defined within the social networking influence incentive rule. Changes in the social networking influence of the user over time may be determined and incentives may be adjusted to further incentivize increased social networking influence. Further, the effectiveness of generated incentives may be evaluated over time and adjusted, again to further incentivize increased social networking influence.
[0014] As such, the present technology provides customized and relevant rewards for system users that SHARE information related to products, services, and other types of offerings (e.g., "checking in" on certain social network sites, social and/or political campaigns, etc.) on social networks. As such, the present technology assists businesses with directing more traffic and profits to their businesses. The present technology allows businesses to learn more about their customers and the effectiveness of their marketing initiatives, and allows businesses to learn more about the effectiveness of social networks within the context of the incentive approach described herein.
[0029] It should be noted that conception of the present subject matter resulted from recognition of certain limitations associated with advertising and advertising incentives. For example, it was observed that, while advertisers desire to increase sales, brand recognition, and market SHARE, previous advertisement approaches are limited with respect to the information provided to advertisers and problematic because different consumers often respond differently to the same incentives. Further, it was observed that advertisers are limited with respect to learning how different consumers respond to incentives that are provided. Additionally, it was observed that while people often "tweet" about experiences with retailers and other organizations (e.g., in-store, online shopping experiences, call center experiences, etc.) and SHARE this information on social media websites, there is no way within the previous/existing systems to correlate influence with respect to purchasing decisions for different types of users (e.g., celebrities with lots of followers versus users with small circles of friends) among their friends/followers. The present subject matter improves advertising and marketing by providing for influence-based incentive generation that is performed in response to programmatic determinations of user influence within social media circles and social networks. Additionally, multiple venues/channels of product acquisition are integrated and the processing described herein self-learns user influence patterns by analyzing responses (e.g., purchases, donations, etc.) across the varied multiple venues/channels by friends and followers of users that influence those responses. Users are further incentivized to influence friends in a highly-granular manner based upon their determined influence. The present technology enables businesses to offer the most desired and comprehensive incentives to different segments of their customers based upon higher determined influence. As such, improved advertising and marketing may be obtained through the multi-channel, self-learning, social influence-based incentive generation described herein.
[0049] Additionally, a reward rule module 220 is associated with the social influence incentive module 216 and allows definition of social networking influence incentive rules to specify conditions for rewarding certain customers/users. As described above, the defined social networking influence incentive rules may be stored within the social networking influence incentive rules database 122. A retailer, political campaign, or other entity may define a set of rules that determine when and what type of rewards the shopper/supporter would get from their social networking friends' activities based on the information available from different entity access channels. For example, a rule may be defined that specifies that if a social networking website user with a configurable number of followers/friends (e.g., ten thousand) on a particular social networking website "liked" the entity's product, service, or store, then the user is to be given a personalized call to thank him/her for good feedback on the particular product, service, or store. As another example, a rule may be defined that specifies that if a person dislikes a product from a competitor of the entity, an e-mail may be sent to this person with a coupon for a similar, but better, product or service provided by the entity. Another example rule may be defined that specifies that if a customer/supporter SHAREs a link to a certain product on an entity's website with his/her friends and a configurable number (e.g., ten) of friends click on this link and make a purchase, the customer/supporter may be sent a gift certificate valid in a physical store where customer/supporter often shops (e.g., based on collected channel information). Many other rules are possible and all are considered within the scope of the present subject matter. The reward rule module 220 may also be a pluggable framework when implemented as an application-level component executed by the CPU 202.
2nd reference Target Web And Social Media Messaging Based On Event Signals
O recording user engagement and performance metrics associated with bubble-related tasks
Target Web And Social Media Messaging Based On Event Signals US 11762934 11:43-55
O distributing digital assets to users based on predefined rules governing the bubble activities
(Guminy Fig 4 issuing ≈ send incentive)
3rd reference Cryptographic Content US20230114684
O maintaining a cryptographic record of the issued rewards on a distributed ledger.
Guminy has rewards record
NOT EXPLICT IN Guminy is cryptographic
but see Cryptographic Content US20230114684 ¶ 125 135 137
It would have been obvious at the time of filing to combine Guminy, Cyrptographic Content US20230114684; they are analogous to not only each other but also the claim. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been reasonably prompted to make the combination. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. Therefore all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. This is Combining Prior Art Elements According to Known Methods.
CLAIM 18
18. The system of claim 15, wherein the method includes
O validating user participation before issuing a reward, based on integrity constraints defined by a smart contract.
Validating user participation Guminy Fig 4
NOT EXPLICT IN Guminy is smart contract but see Cryptographic Content US 20230114684
[0065] Issuance of NFTs 106 via the NFT platform 100 enables verification of the authenticity of NFTs independently of the content creator 104 by confirming that transactions written to one or more of the immutable ledgers are consistent with the smart contracts 108 underlying the NFTs.
CLAIM 20
20. The system of claim 15, wherein bubble-related tasks include collaborative creation of multimedia projects with attribution tracking.
Guminy ¶ 19 32 44 48 53
Claims 16 rejected under 35 USC 103 as obvious over
Guminy US 20140019225 in view of
Target Web And Social Media Messaging Based On Event Signals US 11762934 in view of
Cryptographic Content US20230114684 in view of
Paul Incentivizing Feedback on Social Media US 20190340634
CLAIM 16
16. The system of claim 15, wherein the instructions further cause the device to provide real-time notifications to users upon triggering gamified events.
NOT EXPLICT IN Guminy is gamified
See 2ndary reference Paul Incentivizing Feedback on Social Media US 20190340634 at least Fig 4 game & text
PNG
media_image4.png
538
863
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Claims 17 rejected under 35 USC 103 as obvious over
Guminy US 20140019225 in view of
Target Web And Social Media Messaging Based On Event Signals US 11762934 in view of
Cryptographic Content US20230114684 in view of
Event Processing US 20190026491
CLAIM 17
17. The system of claim 15, wherein the
O cryptographic record includes a hash of the engagement activity and the corresponding user identifier.
Event Processing US 20190026491 Abstract ¶ 7-8
It would have been obvious at the time of filing to combine Guminy, and Event Processing US 20190026491; they are analogous to not only each other but also the claim. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been reasonably prompted to make the combination. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. Therefore all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. This is Combining Prior Art Elements According to Known Methods.
Claims 19 rejected under 35 USC 103 as obvious over
Guminy US 20140019225 in view of
Target Web And Social Media Messaging Based On Event Signals US 11762934 in view of
Cryptographic Content US20230114684 in view of
Content Submission, Flannagan, US 20250335700
CLAIM 19
NOT EXPLICT IN Guminy is all of the following
19. The system of claim 15, wherein the content submission step includes automated moderation using a content filtering engine.
Guminy ¶ 33 42
Content Submission, Flannagan, US 20250335700 ¶ 8 49 Fig 4 & text
It would have been obvious at the time of filing to combine Guminy, and Content Submission, Flannagan, US 20250335700; they are analogous to not only each other but also the claim. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been reasonably prompted to make the combination. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. Therefore all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. This is Combining Prior Art Elements According to Known Methods.
POINT OF CONTACT
Pertinent prior art cited but not relied upon
US 20140115469 ¶ 28 If the media destination is a social networking service, the configurations 116a-c could specify information about privacy settings for the published media content (e.g., whether the media content will be visible by just the user associated with the user account, or visible to the public, or visible to friends/connections of the user).
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, Waseem Ashraf can be reached at 571-270-3948. 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.
BREFFNI BAGGOT
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3621
/BREFFNI BAGGOT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3621