DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Status
Claims 1, 3-10, and 12-19 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Regarding the Applicant’s representative’s “Statement of Substance of Interview”, the Applicant’s representative, argued that the USPTO’s Memorandum and recent Appeals Review Panel (ARP) Decision was similar to the instant application’s reasoning provided under 35 USC 101 and should be found eligible for substantially the same reasons. The Examiner respectfully disagreed and noted the memo and the recent decision did not address or overturn decisions on subject matter eligibility related to transmitting a first type of resource of a second account to a first account based on a triggering operation associated with playing access to a video corresponding to a first creature posted by the first account. The Examiner further noted that the Applicant’s representative interpretation of the recent ARP decision was not reflected or provided in any official USPTO training.
With respect to the Applicant’s arguments, filed 11/25/25, to the “Response to Arguments” of pages 2-5 of the Non-Final Rejection, the Applicant’s representative traverses and maintains the position asserted in the prior response and maintains that position (see Remarks, pg. 2-13). The Examiner similarly maintains the position asserted in the prior response as detailed in the “Response to Arguments” of pages 2-5. In particular, the Applicant’s representative alleges that the Examiner has exceeded the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claimed invention that is consistent with the specification associated with the claim (see Remarks, pg. 2-13). The Examiner respectfully disagrees. As noted above, the claims recite a series of steps and/or instructions that are directed to transmitting a first type of resource of a second account currently logged in to the first account based upon triggering the playing access to display the first video. The Examiner has found the claimed subject matter to be analogous to a certain method of organizing human activity such as a fundamental economic activity. This is consistent with the Specification which explicitly and consistently states that the claimed subject matter is directed to payment of the first type of resource to the account posting the first video in the process of playing the first video (see 0039 - “the first terminal 101 is configured to post a first video, and the second terminal 102 is configured to play the first video and pay a corresponding first type of resource for the first video”, 0043, 0050 - “the account system includes a registration login system and payment consumption system of a user”; 0057 –“When watching the first video, the user pays the first type of resource to the account posting the first video. The first type of resource can be exchanged for the real target type of supply, so that the account posting the video can get real revenue when the user watches the video;”, 0144, “That is, in the process of playing the first video, the second account need to pay the first type of resource to the first account to play the complete first video”; 0173 – Since the first video includes a real creature, the user of the second terminal can directly pay the first type of resource to the account posting the first video in the process of playing the first video). It follows, that under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the Examiner has interpreted the claims as being directed to a transmission/payment of a first type of resource from a second account to a first account in exchange for playing access to a first video. This is analogous to a exchange of payment for a service which is a fundamental economic transaction that the courts have indicated is directed to the abstract grouping of a certain method of organizing human activity. The remaining arguments are premise on an improper evaluation of the BRI of the claimed invention which are not persuasive for the reasons provided above. For at least these reasons, the Applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
With respect to the Applicant's arguments filed 11/25/25, the arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The Applicant’s representative traverses the rejection of claims 1, 3-10, and 12-19 under 35 USC 101 because the claim features cover “a particular solution to a problem or a particular way to achieve a desired outcome” (see Remarks, pg. 13-17). The Examiner respectfully disagrees. As noted above, the claims, recite subject matter for transmission, of a first resource from a second account to a first account for playing access to a posted video (see 0039, 0043, 0050, 0057, 0144, and 0173, wherein the transmission is analogous to a payment by a second account for playing access of the video posted by the first account). Furthermore, the Specification indicates that the interaction process between the user and the creature in the video is more realistic because the “first type of resource can be exchanged for the real target type of supply, so that the account posting the video can get real revenue when the user watches the video” (see Specification, 0057). For at least this reasons, the claimed subject matter has been construed as being directed to a fundamental economic activity and not found to recite a technical solution to a technical problem (see MPEP 2106.04(a)). For at least these reasons, the Applicant’s arguments is not persuasive and the rejection has been maintained below.
With respect to the Applicant’s representatives request under 2106.07(a)(II), the Examiner notes that “it is a best practice for the examiner to consult the specification to determine if there are elements that could be added to the claim to make it eligible (see Remarks, pg. 18). The Examiner as noted above, after reviewing the Specification, has not found sufficient detail to show an improvement to computer functionality and/or to a different field of technology to suggest an amendment that would integrate the claim into a practical application and/or amount to significantly more. It is further noted, that the Applicant’s representative has not indicated any relevant portions of the Specification or a persuasive argument that is different from the Examiner’s findings. For at least this reason, the Examiner is not able to comply with the Applicant’s request.
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, 3-10, and 12-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims, as exemplified by independent Claim 1 recites limitations such as: “playing the first video posted by the first account, the first video comprising a resource transmission access” – certain method of organizing human activity; “displaying, during the playing of the first video, the resource transmission access, the resource transmission access being configured for transmitting a first type of resource to the first account” and “transmitting, the first type of resource of a second account currently logged in to the first account based on a triggering operation of the resource transmission access being performed during the playing of the first video, wherein the second account is associated with a first creature identifier corresponding to the real creature in the first video – certain method of organizing human activity. The claims are found to recite a certain method of organizing human activity such as a series of steps and/or instructions of a fundamental economic activity such as a commercial transaction. For at least these reasons, the claims recite a grouping of abstract ideas under Step 2A-prong 1.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional limitations such as “receiving, from a server, a first video posted by a first account, the first video being obtained by photographing a real creature”, “displaying, during the playing of the first video”, “transmitting, via the server”, “displaying, based on an association relationship between the first account and the first creature identifier, a playing access of a video corresponding to the first creature identifier in a video display interface, the video corresponding to the first creature identifier being a video comprising the real creature indicated by the first creature identifier”, and “playing the first video based on a triggering operation for the playing access of the first video in the video display interface.” recite a series of steps and/or instructions which invoke a computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea, extra solution activity including pre and post solution activity and/or providing a technological environment in which to perform the abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)-(h)). For at least these reasons the claims are not found to integrate the claim into a practical application under Step 2A-prong 2.
The claims, as exemplified by independent Claim 1, recite the additional elements of: “a server” which is not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because when viewed individually and/or as a whole the additional elements amounts to invoke a computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea, extra solution activity, and/or provide a technological environment to perform the abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)-(h)). It follows that the claims are similar to Alice v. CLS in which the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. For at least these reasons, the claims, as exemplified by independent Claim 1, does not recite significantly more than the abstract idea under Step 2B.
Independent Claims 10 and 19 recite substantially the same subject matter but are directed to the apparatus and non-transitory computer readable medium embodiments. These limitations further recite additional elements such as “at least one memory” to store program code, “at least one processor”, and “a server” which when viewed individually and/or as a whole recites steps to invoke a computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea, extra solution activity, and/or provide a technological environment to perform the abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)-(h)). For at least these reasons, independent Claims 10 and 19 are found to recite an abstract idea without significantly more.
With respect to dependent Claims 3-9 and 12-18, the remaining limitations have been analyzed and were found to recite a step and/or instruction of a grouping of abstract ideas, invoking a computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea, extra solution activity, and/or provide a technological environment in which to perform the abstract idea. For at least these reasons, claims 1, 3-10, and 12-19 are found to recite an abstract idea without significantly more.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RYAN HSU whose telephone number is (571)272-7148. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 10:00-6:00 PM.
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, Dmitry Suhol can be reached at (571) 272-4430. 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.
/RYAN HSU/EXAMINER, Art Unit 3715