DETAILED ACTION
This is an office action on the merits in response to the communication filed on 9/9/2025.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims’ Status
Claims 1-20 are pending and have been examined.
Response to Arguments
103
Examiner decides to issue a second non-final to correct the prior art deficiencies (Shirai reference) found in the previous office action.
101 Rejection
Applicant's arguments do not recite an improvement to technology or a computer's functions, rather they discuss a process/business improvement of a digital art rendering system; organizing/managing render count system is only improving the business process of organizing creative digital art system. It is important to keep in mind that an improvement in the abstract idea itself (e.g. organizing human activity, including managing personal behavior ore relationships or interactions) is not an improvement in technology. For example, in Trading Technologies Inti v. IBG, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093-94, and 2019 USPQ2d 138290 (Fed. Cir. 2019), the court determined that the claimed user interface simply provided a trader with more information to facilitate market trades, which improved the business process of market trading but did not improve computers or technology.” MPEP 2106.05(a) (Il).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is not directed to patent eligible subject matter. The claimed matter is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea not integrated into a practical application) without significantly more.
Step 1 (The Statutory Categories): Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter? MPEP 2106.03
Per Step 1, claim 1 is a non-transitory computer readable medium claim; claim 10 is a system claim; and claim 19 is a method claim. Thus, independent claims 1, 10, and 19 are directed to statutory subject matter.
However, independent claims 1, 10, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claims recite an abstract idea, a judicial exception, without reciting additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The abstract idea of the independent claims is (claims 1, 10, and 19 being similar in scope):
Claim 1:
after receiving a request from a user for the rendering system to render a creative work associated with a non-fungible token, determining (i) whether the user owns the non-fungible token, (ii) a current render count corresponding to how many times the creative work associated with the non-fungible token has been previously rendered, and (iii) whether the current render count is less than a maximum render count, wherein the maximum render count corresponds to a preconfigured, fixed, non-extendable total number of renderings of the creative work associated with the non-fungible token that were originally authorized by a creator of the non-fungible token;
when the user owns the non-fungible token and the current render count indicates that the creative work has been previously rendered fewer than the maximum render count, causing the rendering system to (i) obtain an implementation file corresponding to the creative work, (ii) render the creative work according to the implementation file, and (iii) update the current render count to reflect another rendering of the creative work; and determining whether the rendering system satisfactorily rendered the creative work according to the implementation file based on at least one of (i) an indication from the user specifying whether the rendering of the creative work was satisfactory or (ii) a computer-analysis of one or more images of the rendered creative work.
Step 2A Prong 1: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon MPEP 2106.04, see also October 2019 Patent Eligibility Guidance Update (issued October 17, 2019) (“2019 PEG Update”).
The limitations, as drafted, constitute an abstract idea under certain methods of organizing human activity, including managing personal behavior ore relationships or interactions including following rules or instructions. The claims clearly capture a relationship between a user and a rendering system (i.e., computer) wherein the rendering system helps the user to manage creative work that is associated with the NFT/digital asset. The abstract idea, recited above, includes: determining (i) whether the user owns the non-fungible token; causing the rendering system to (i) obtain an implementation file corresponding to the creative work, (ii) render the creative work according to the implementation file, and (iii) update the current render count to reflect another rendering of the creative work. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong 2: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? MPEP 2106.04, see also 2019 PEG Update.
The recited computing elements are also recited at a high-level of generality, i.e. as generic computing element (one or more tangible, non-transitory computer-readable media; processor) performing generic computer functions such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). Simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more, since it amounts to no more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer, as set forth in MPEP 2106.05(f).
The other additional, positive elements recite “determining (ii) a current render count corresponding to how many times the creative work associated with the non-fungible token has been previously rendered, and (iii) whether the current render count is less than a maximum render count; determining whether the rendering system satisfactorily rendered the creative work according to the implementation file based on at least one of (i) an indication from the user specifying whether the rendering of the creative work was satisfactory or (ii) a computer-analysis of one or more images of the rendered creative work” in the claim, which amounts to merely further organizing the collected information and therefore applying 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).
Accordingly, these additional claim elements, alone and in combination do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, because (1) they do not effect improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field (see MPEP 2106.05(a)); (2) they do not apply or use the abstract idea to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or a medical condition (see the Vanda memo); (3) they do not apply the abstract idea with, or by use of, a particular machine (see MPEP 2106.05(b)); (4) they do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (see MPEP 2106.05(c)); (5) they do not apply or use the abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the identified abstract idea to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designated to monopolize the exception (see MPEP 2106.05(e) and the Vanda memo). Therefore, per Step 2A, Prong Two, the claim is directed to an abstract idea not integrated into a practical application.
Step 2B (The Inventive Concept): Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? MPEP 2106.05.
Step 2B of the eligibility analysis concludes that the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Examiner carries over the analysis from Step 2A related to the generic computing elements being no more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer (MPEP 2106.05(f)). The additional claim elements that are just “applying it” are mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, are carried over for further analysis in Step 2B.
When the independent claims are considered as a whole, as a combination, the claim elements noted above do not amount to any more than they amount to individually. The operations appear to merely apply the abstract concept to a technical environment in a very general sense. The most significant elements of the claims, that is the elements that really outline the inventive elements of the claims, are set forth in the elements identified as an abstract idea. Therefore, it is concluded that the elements of the independent claims are directed to one or more abstract ideas and do not amount to significantly more. (MPEP 2106.05)
Further, Step 2B of the analysis takes into consideration all dependent claims as well, both individually and as a whole, as a combination:
Claims 4, 8, and 9 each is directed to nonfunctional descriptive material of “the nft and the rendering system.” While these descriptive elements may provide further helpful context for the claimed invention, these elements do not serve to confer subject matter eligibility to the invention since their individual and combined significance is still not significantly more than the abstract concept at the core of the claimed invention.
Claims 2, 3, and 5-7 each narrows the abstract idea and therefore would still fall into the same groupings of: Managing personal interactions between people by following rules or instructions – Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity. For example, claim 2 further describing the declining steps; claim 3 on obtaining the implementation file; claim 5 on obtaining data sufficient to identify the rendered creative work; claim 6 on generating a certificate of authenticity associated with the rendered creative work; claim 7 on determining whether the rending system satisfactorily rendered the creative work, etc. Moreover, the claims in the instant application do not constitute significantly more also because the claims or claim elements only serve to implement the abstract idea using computer components to perform computing functions (Enfish, see MPEP 2106.05(a)).
The most significant elements of the claims, that is the elements that really outline the inventive elements of the claims, are set forth in the elements identified in the independent claims as an abstract idea. The fact that the associated computing devices are facilitating the abstract concept is not enough to confer statutory subject matter eligibility. In sum, the additional elements do not serve to confer subject matter eligibility to the invention since their individual and combined significance is still not heavier than the abstract concepts at the core of the claimed invention. The other dependent claims, which are similar in scope to the earlier cited dependent claims above, are rejected for the same reason as above. Therefore, it is concluded that the dependent claims of the instant application do not amount to significantly more either. (see MPEP 2106.05)
In sum, claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 USC 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1, 10, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claims 1, 10, and 19 each recites “wherein the maximum render count corresponds to a preconfigured, fixed, non-extendable total number of renderings of the creative work associated with the non-fungible token that were originally authorized by a creator of the non-fungible token”, however there is no support from the specification that describes “….non-extendable total number of renderings of the creative work …”. Correction is suggested.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 USC § 103 as being unpatentable over Erickson (US7047241B1) in view of Rich et al. (US20200242105A1) in view of Bowen et al. (US20220075845), and in further view of Quigley et al. (US20220351195A1).
Regarding Claims 1, 10, and 19, Erickson discloses a tangible, non-transitory computer-readable media comprising program instructions stored therein, wherein the program instructions, when executed by one or more processors, cause a rendering system to perform functions comprising (¶ Column 11, lines 19-67):
after receiving a request from a user for the rendering system to render a creative work […] (Column 4, lines 56-66; Column 5, lines 36-40; Column 5, lines 64-67; Column 6, lines 29-41)
Erickson – when a user clicks on an OBJECT to request auxiliary use of the Digital Creative Work, the CONTAINER automatically prompts the EXTENSION to locate and connect with the assigned REGISTRY through Internet communication. In certain aspects of the invention, the REGISTRY includes a separate registration server and an authorization server. The registration server is used to register CONTAINERs, and the authorization server is used to authorize auxiliary uses of CONTAINERs, such as to provide licensing to the Digital Creative Works therein. However, the REGISTRY is typically a single registration server that operates as a registration server and as an authorization server to negotiate licenses with on-line users of Digital Creative Works (Columns 6, lines 29-41). If the Digital Creative Work is, for example, a GIF file, the computer tells the SYSTEM EXTENSION to do the rendering and the SYSTEM EXTENSION, in turn, calls on a GIF viewer or renderer to display the GIF (i.e., the Digital Creative Work in this example) to the user. Similarly, a VIEWER can refer to rendering software of JPEGs, AVIs, PDFs, MIDs, etc (Column 5, lines 64-67).
(ii) a current render count corresponding to how many times the creative work […] has been previously rendered; and (Column 40, lines 66 and 67; Column 40, lines 44-49; Column 41, lines 4-8)
Erickson - Accordingly, the work 412 a created at station 412 is “derivative” in nature, since it derives from previous artistic work (i.e., the work 410 a) of the author at station 410. The invention keeps track of the derivative uses and edits of digital creative works in a source works file disposed within the METADATA, as described herein (Column 40, lines 44-49). The balance between accessibility and locality of the CONTAINER's properties. For example, certain static METADATA, such as the author's name, can be located in the CONTAINER 420; whereas requests for volatile METADATA information, such as quantity of works 412 a to be published, is generally referred to a remote server. For example, the web site 430 or station 412 can each function as such a remote server; and the author at station 412 can specify, or change, the number of published quantities of the work 412 as needed (Column 40, lines 66 and 67; Column 41, lines 4-8)
[…] the current render counts indicates that the creative work has been previously rendered fewer than a maximum render count causing the rendering system to (Column 8, lines 52-60; Column 27, lines 6-25; Column 36, lines 60-65; Column 40, lines 66 and 67; Column 41, lines 4-8))
Erickson - To enable permissions clearance for Source works, public registration will not be permitted without proper source works clearance. This is ensured by the following: first, system 70 will not allow on-line registration to take place unless the permissions of the included source works (plus any auxiliary permissions) agree with the intended minimum permissions and maximum licensable permissions, the latter to be set at registration time. Secondly, the registration server 78 will not allow registration unless it is proven that the Source works are clear. Clearances are required for those Source works extensions with insufficient minimum permissions for the intended distribution of the derivative work. These clearances are in the form of auxiliary permissions, obtained on-line with licensing transactions identical to those discussed earlier. Given the intended minimum and licensed maximum permissions, the Source Works Manager Window displays those source works whose permissions need upgrading. The user will then select each one individually to launch a licensing transaction. Clearances that are encrypted are based on the user's key, and therefore cannot be transferred (Column 27, lines 6-25). The balance between accessibility and locality of the CONTAINER's properties. For example, certain static METADATA, such as the author's name, can be located in the CONTAINER 420; whereas requests for volatile METADATA information, such as quantity of works 412 a to be published, is generally referred to a remote server. For example, the web site 430 or station 412 can each function as such a remote server; and the author at station 412 can specify, or change, the number of published quantities of the work 412 a as needed (Column 40, lines 66 and 67 – Column 41, lines 4-8).
(i) obtain an implementation file corresponding to the creative work (Column 5, lines 3- 40),
Erickson - OBJECT means an instantiation such as an icon, graphic or other visual, on a computer, which is, or which refers to, or which points to an object such as a CONTAINER. Typically, an OBJECT is viewable within an application such as a Web browser such that a user directly views authorized content of the Digital Creative Work. However, for example, a user can select or "click” the OBJECT with a computer mouse to gain additional information in and to the CONTAINER and/or to obtain additional licenses to the OBJECT's Digital Creative Works. The OBJECT thus instantiates the existence of the Digital Creative Work in a composition such as a CONTAINER. In the usual case, for example, a Digital Creative Work within a CONTAINER is actually an image (i.e., the “OBJECT) on a user's computer.
(ii) render the creative work according to the implementation file, and (Column 4, lines 50-55; Column 5, lines 3- 40)
Erickson - The Digital Contract includes a textual expression of enhanced permissions for use of the Digital Creative Work and may or may not be accompanied by an upgrade of the operational controls such as the ability to print, save and/or edit the Digital Creative Work (Column 4, lines 50-55). In the preferred embodiment of the invention, the user will view an OBJECT and not notice anything different about the Digital Creative Work until the user tries to operate on the OBJECT in ways that are prohibited. For example, when a user attempts to click on the OBJECT, or to print the OBJECT, or to copy the OBJECT to another file, or to attempt other operations that are restricted, the EXTENSION takes over and informs the user that such operations are prohibited without an additional license to the Digital Creative Work. An OBJECT can be formed of a group of OBJECTS. Once permissions or licenses are granted to perform additional operations. Such as copying, the DIGITAL CREATIVE WORK and META DATA remain linked during the copying process so that the user copies the CONTAINER, preserving attribution and facilitating the further management of the Digital Creative Work. It is important to note that an OBJECT instantiates a CONTAINER which itself can exist locally, e.g., within internal memory, and/or remotely across one or more sites on the Internet. The invention communicates an OBJECT to a user through a file or a continuous data stream: in the first case, the OBJECT is rendered to the user after the complete data set is received; and in the second case the OBJECT is rendered (Column 5, lines 3- 40).
(iii) update the current render count to reflect another rendering of the creative work (Column 40, lines 66 and 67; Column 41, lines 4-8)
Erickson - The balance between accessibility and locality of the CONTAINER's properties. For example, certain static METADATA, such as the author's name, can be located in the CONTAINER 420; whereas requests for volatile METADATA information, such as quantity of works 412 a to be published, is generally referred to a remote server. For example, the web site 430 or station 412 can each function as such a remote server; and the author at station 412 can specify, or change, the number of published quantities of the work 412 as needed (Column 40, lines 66 and 67; Column 41, lines 4-8).
Erickson discloses a rendering system to render a creative work, however, Erickson does not explicitly disclose the creative work is associated with a non-fungible token and determining (i) whether the user owns the non-fungible token
Rich teaches the following:
[…] associated with a non-fungible token (¶ 0033, 0034, 0178, 0181),
Rich– KNFT application server may be configured to receive, over a distributed computing network from a remote computing node, a request for a new non-fungible token (“KNFT”) wherein the KNFT comprises a unique KNFT identifier, at least one metadata element, and least one social vector (¶ 0033).
determining (i) whether the user owns the non-fungible token, and […] (¶ 0035, 0074, 0075, 0122, 0187)
Rich - a change in ownership of the KNFT may be written to the social vector by the KNFT API;. In still further embodiments, the social vector may comprise social vector data from at least one prior owner. In further embodiments, the KNFT may further comprise a circulation trail vector that incorporates the ownership history of the KNFT. In further embodiments, the social vector may comprise a metric representing a count of number of circulations of the KNFT (¶ 0035).
when the user owns the non-fungible token and […] (¶ 0035, 0074, 0075, 0122, 0187)
Rich - a change in ownership of the KNFT may be written to the social vector by the KNFT API. In still further embodiments, the social vector may comprise social vector data from at least one prior owner. In further embodiments, the KNFT may further comprise a circulation trail vector that incorporates the ownership history of the KNFT. In further embodiments, the social vector may comprise a metric representing a count of number of circulations of the KNFT (¶ 0035).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the creative work of Erickson with the KNFT of Rich because doing so allows a creative work to be associated with a NFT and in doing so will allow the user to render the creative work based on the NFT rights and permissions associated with the creative work.
The combination of Erickson and Rich does not explicitly disclose, but Bowen teaches: determining whether the rendering system satisfactorily rendered the creative work according to the implementation file based on at least one of (i) an indication from the user specifying whether the rendering of the creative work was satisfactory or (ii) a computer-analysis of one or more images of the rendered creative work (see at least [0528-0532])
Note: This application claims priority 03-23-2021, however this particular limitation “determining whether the rendering system satisfactorily rendered the creative work according to the implementation file based on at least one of (i) an indication from the user specifying whether the rendering of the creative work was satisfactory or (ii) a computer-analysis of one or more images of the rendered creative work” cannot be found from application 63/165,047 that claims priority 03-23-2021. Therefore, this particular limitation does not have priority on 03-23-2021, but instead on 03-22-2022.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of Bowen with the teaching of Erickson/Rich as they relate to method of managing digital content on a platform. One of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the claimed invention was made would have recognized the combined systems of Erickson/Rich, for example by modifying the system of managing digital creative works in Erickson, to the method of determining whether the rendering system satisfactorily rendered the creative work as taught in Bowen for the predicated result of rendering the creative work based on the NFT rights.
The combination of Erickson, Rich, and Bowen does not explicitly teach, but Quigley teaches: …. (iii) whether the current render count is less than a maximum render count, wherein the maximum render count corresponds to a preconfigured, fixed, non-extendable total number of renderings of the creative work associated with the non-fungible token that were originally authorized by a creator of the non-fungible token ([0537], The template 3240 may further store a supply data 3248 data value, which may indicate how many tokens corresponding to the template have already been issued, a maximum number of tokens that may be issued, and/or the like. The minting smart contract 3130 may check that the current supply is less than the maximum supply before allowing a token to be minted using the template and may increment the currently supply whenever a new card is minted using the template; see also [0563], Later, the developer device 3108 may cause another distributed ledger transaction to invoke a second configuration function 3422 for deleting a crafting recipe (e.g., in response to reaching a supply limit for the tokens crafted by the recipe).)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the creative work of Erickson with the KNFT of Rich and the maximum token supply of Quigley because doing so allows a creative work to be associated with a NFT and in doing so will allow the user to render the creative work based on the NFT rights and permissions associated with the creative work a maximum number of times.
Regarding Claims 2 and 11, Erickson discloses declining to render the creative work associated with the non-fungible token when either (i) the user does not own the non-fungible token or (ii) the user owns the non-fungible token but the current render count indicates that the creative work has been previously rendered the maximum render count corresponding to the preconfigured, fixed, non-extendable total number of authorized renderings (Column 32, lines 11-14),
Erickson - The Check Clearances function is also applied to the set of Transaction Rules which the developer intends to load on the Registration Server. The basic principle is that a derivative work may not grant more rights to the use of a source work than what was available before the derivative work was created (Column 32, lines 11-14).
Regarding Claims 3 and 12, Rich teaches obtaining the implementation file from an escrow agent, wherein the escrow agent is implemented via one or more of (i) one or more smart contracts associated with the non-fungible token or (ii) one or more software agents (¶ 0117).
Rich - Smart contracts are limited in scope to only acting on data stored on the blockchain itself, unlike external applications which can read both the blockchain and metadata. By extending the data attributes in the contract, for example, by adding a redemption timestamp to the contract for Redeemable KNFTs, a smart contract can confirm when and whether a KNFT has been redeemed, and, with appropriate authorization delegated by the defining contract, mark it as redeemed and provide in exchange some other on-blockchain transaction or asset (¶ 0117).
Regarding Claims 4 and 13, Rich teaches wherein the non-fungible token is associated with one or more data files comprising publicly-viewable information comprising one or more of (i) one or more visual representations of the creative work, (ii) an indication of the maximum render count corresponding to the preconfigured, fixed, non-extendable total number of authorized renderings of the creative work associated with the non-fungible token, (iii) an indication of the current render count corresponding to how many times the creative work associated with the non-fungible token has been previously rendered, (iv) a difference between the maximum render count and the current render count, or (v) a public key associated with a current owner of the non-fungible token (¶ 0191).
Rich - Every KNFT user may have a wallet collection that showcases: (1) currently held KNFTs; and (2) previously held KNFT that the user had in their possession in the past and then given or sold. These KNFTs are displayed so that a user can access their KNFT Profiles. Clicking on any KNFT in the wallet collection takes a user to its profile where they can see the circulation and conversation associated with that KNFT. The KNFT wallet collection may be implemented in any number of ways including a SaaS portal, mobile app, or dedicated application (¶ 0191).
Regarding Claims 5 and 14, Erickson discloses obtaining data sufficient to uniquely identify the rendered creative work; and causing the data sufficient to uniquely identify the rendered creative work to be associated with the non-fungible token.
Regarding Claims 6 and 15. The tangible, non-transitory computer-readable media of claim 1, wherein the functions further comprise, after rendering the creative work according to the implementation file, additionally: causing generation of a certificate of authenticity associated with the rendered creative work (Column 21, lines 11-18).
Erickson - The Container Identifier 22 uniquely identifies the CON TAINER 20 by the registration server upon which the CONTAINER has been registered, and the CONTAINER's registration or index number on that server. This registration code typically contains the server name and registration index. A registration server cross-reference table, working in conjunction with the Internet's Domain Name Service (DNS), is used to find the actual network address (typically a TCP/IP address) of the registration server. In one example, a unique server code may indicate local registration, usually indicating a work in progress. In another example, an author logged onto a computer, such as the author 20 of FIG. 1, and actively generating a copyright work in progress, e.g., a novel in Microsoft WordTM, will update and store the work on the local computer. In one embodiment of the invention, a work in progress is a locally accessible file which has not been authenticated through the registration process (Column 21, lines 11-18).
Regarding Claims 8, 17, 19, Erickson discloses wherein the rendering system comprises one or more of (i) a rendering machine, (ii) a computing device configured to control or communicate with the rendering machine, or (iii) a cloud-based server system configured to control or communicate with the rendering machine (Column 6, lines 1-20).
Erickson - (i.e., the Digital Creative Work in this example) to the user. Similarly, a VIEWER can refer to rendering software of JPEGs, AVIs, PDFs, MIDs, etc. Indirectly, the VIEWER is sometimes embodied with the SYSTEM EXTENSION or as separate software specific to the invention so as to render, for example, a Digital Contract. More particularly, when asked by the user (e.g., with the “click” of a computer mouse), the EXTENSION renders the associated Digital Creative Works with a VIEWER specifi cally designed to view the Digital Contract. The VIEWER also refers to a computer Subsystem, operable by a user desiring to manipulate one or more CONTAINERs that contain either (a) a shell extension which responds to direct manipulation, at the computer, of OBJECTS referring to CONTAINERS, or (b) an object control, which is used to display CONTAINERS or portions of CONTAINERS - within other applications. By way of example, an object control of the invention can include ActiveX Control that permits display of an OBJECT, within an application such as a web browser, that links the computer to the CONTAINER (Column 6, lines 1-20).
Regarding Claims 9, 18, and 20, Erickson discloses wherein the rendering machine comprises one of (i) a printer, (ii) a three-dimensional printer, (iii) a computer numerical control (CNC) machine, (iv) a laser cutter, or (v) a video display screen (Column 8, lines 42-51).
Rubens - A desktop laser cutter configured to cut a cylindrical workpiece includes a laser, a cutting head that receives an electromagnetic beam from the laser and emits a cutting beam, and a gantry that supports the cutting head relative to a base plate of the laser cutter housing. The gantry can be actuated to move the cutting head within a plane that is parallel to the baseplate. The cutting head emits the cutting beam in a direction parallel to the plane. In use, the cutting head is disposed side-by-side with the workpiece and the cutting beam is applied to a side of the workpiece that faces a sidewall of the laser cutter housing. The workpiece is supported by the gantry to rotate an amount that is a function of movement of the cutting head in a direction parallel to the plane.
Allowable Subject Matter
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Claims 7 and 16 each contains allowable subject matter: “wherein the functions further comprise, after rendering the creative work according to the implementation file, additionally: when the rendering system did not satisfactorily render the creative work according to the implementation file, causing the rendering system to (i) damage at least a portion of the rendered creative work and (ii) render the creative work according to the implementation file again.”
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE Non-FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YIN Y CHOI whose telephone number is (571)272-1094 or yin.choi@uspto.gov. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 7:30 - 5:30pm EST.
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, Neha Patel can be reached on 571-270-1492. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/YIN Y CHOI/Examiner, Art Unit 3699 12/13/2025