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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1, 2, 7, 9, 13, 15, 17-20 are currently amended. Claims 6 and 16 have been cancelled. Thus, claims 1-5, 7-15, and 17-20 remain pending and are presented for examination.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments and amendments filed 8 April 2026 with respect to 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues, “The amended claims are not directed to a generic licensing concept or a commercial rule, but instead recite a specific, ordered implementation in a networked media content platform that constrains supervisor interaction and gates access using platform control flows…the recitations…specify supervisor device signaling and ledger-based gating operations used to implement access restriction, rather than merely stating that access is restricted under terms… The claim language therefore integrates any alleged abstract idea into a practical application …” . However, the Examiner disagrees. The additional elements do not transform the abstract idea into a practical application because they are still directed to conventional licensing and access control of content implemented on a general-purpose computer. The supervisor interactions, acceptance signal, and ledger recording are recited at a high level of functional result, not as a specific technological improvement to the operation of the platform. The claim merely uses a computer, network, and ledger to manage acceptance of terms and to gate access based on the resulting license, which is a commercial interaction.
Additionally, the Applicant alleges that the additional elements amount to significantly more than merely applying licensing rules on a generic computer because the claims recite an ordered technical process. While the claims may include an ordered sequence of steps, the mere recitation of an ordered process is not indicative of an integration into a practical application absent a specific technical improvement to the operation of the platform.
Applicant’s amendments and arguments, with respect to the 103 rejection have been fully considered and are persuasive. The prior art rejection of claims 1-5, 7-15, and 17-20 has been withdrawn.
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 1-5, 7-15, and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 1, 7, and 15 recite receiving a request from an artist entity to enable access to a media content item of the artist entity, the request including one or more terms that control use of the media content item ; verifying an identity of the artist entity based on registration data, and granting or denying role-based permissions to list media content items depending on a verification result; in response to the granting, listing/displaying the media content item, the listing enabling the media content item to be accessed and associating the media content item with one or more characteristics of the media content item and the one or more terms ;surfacing, to a supervisor entity a subset of media content items from media content items that are available for access, the subset of media content items that are surfaced including the media content item with the one or more of the terms that control use of the media content item; wherein the elements exposed to the supervisor entity correspond to options previously selected by a source of the media content item as being acceptable, and wherein the surfacing comprises deterministically removing media content items having terms that fail to satisfy one or more threshold metrics specified by the supervisor entity; receiving a selection of the media content item for licensing by the supervisor entity and a term acceptance associated with the selection, the acceptance indicating acceptance of one or more terms; determining whether the term acceptance has been received with the selection; in response to determining that the term acceptance has been received with the selection: generating a license associated with the media content item, the license including the one or more terms accepted by the supervisor entity; outputting, to the artist entity, a notification that a supervisor entity has selected the media content for access under the accepted terms; providing, to the supervisor entity, the media content item and the license for accessing the media content item under the one or more terms; controlling access to the media content by the supervisor entity based on an indication by the recorded license that the media content item has been licensed by the supervisor entity; and in response to determining that the term acceptance has not been received with the selection, preventing access to the media content item by the supervisor entity.
The limitations above are processes that under the broadest reasonable interpretation fall into the abstract idea grouping of “certain methods of organizing human activity”. Specifically, the limitations of media licensing and ensuring that access to media is restricted by the licensing terms is a commercial and legal interaction, see MPEP 2106.04 (a) (2)(II)(B).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claims recite the following additional elements: “computer-implemented” (claims 1, 7, and 15), “by/via/on a media content platform” (claims 1, 7, and 15), “the media content platform being internet-connected” (claims 1, 7, and 15) , “via a user interface of the media content” (claims 1, 7, and 15), “interactive elements” (claims 1, 7, and 15), “from a supervisor device platform” (claims 1, 7, and 15), “via the user interface” (claims 1, 7, and 15), “control signal” (claims 1, 7, and 15), “a selectable control” (claims 1, 7, and 15); and “via the user interface of the media content platform” (claims 1, 7, and 15). The additional elements of computer-implemented” (claims 1, 7, and 15), “by/via/on a media content platform” (claims 1, 7, and 15), “via a user interface of the media content” (claims 1, 7, and 15), “from a supervisor device platform” (claims 1, 7, and 15), “via the user interface” (claims 1, 7, and 15), “a selectable control” (claims 1, 7, and 15); and “via the user interface of the media content platform” (claims 1, 7, and 15) amount to no more than mere instruction to implement the abstract idea on a computer. The fact that the “media content platform being internet-connected” is a general link to the technological field of computers. Additionally, adding that the terms are part of a “smart contract” (claims 1, 7, and 15) and that “ledger maintained by the media content platform” (claims 1, 7, and 15), is recited at a high-level of generality and amount to no more that general link of the judicial exception to the technological field of blockchain. Limitations that are mere instructions and/or a general tie to a field are not indicative of an integration into a practical application. Even when viewed as an ordered combination, the additional elements are still mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using generic computer components and a general link to a technological field.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to more than the judicial exception for the same reasons as presented above. The claims as a whole merely describes how to apply the concept of restricting access to media content on a general-purpose computer. Moreover, the additional elements are recited at a high-level of generality as evidenced by the spec at paragraphs 0047 and 0213 describing the elements at a high-level with respect to storing the contract. This, even when viewed a s wile, nothing in the claims adds significantly more to the abstract idea. Therefore, the claims are ineligible.
Dependent claims 2-5, 8-14, and 17-20 recite additional details that further narrow the previously recited abstract idea. While claims 3-5 and10 recite the additional element of machine learning, the machine learning is not more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer and/or a tie to a technical field. Thus, even when viewed as a whole, nothing in the claims adds significantly more to the abstract idea. Therefore, the claims are ineligible.
Closest Prior Art
The closest prior art of record is:
Weich et al (US 2015/0026078) discloses generating and providing an authorization indication in relation to a media content item. A user may select a media content item created and/or owned by another entity/user that the user wishes to obtain a license for. Upon determining that a user has complied with one or more requirements/directives dictated by the owner/provider of the media content item and thus received authorization from the media content owner, an authorization indication of rights or permissions.
Montler et al (US 20230058710) discloses a content licensing platform or marketplace in which selectable control interface to accept terms of a license.
Sado (US 20230169498) discloses granting or denying permission to list media content based on verification of the user.
However, the cited art does not teach or suggest the limitation of “surfacing, to a supervisor entity via a user interface of the media content platform, a subset of media content items from media content items that are available for access, the subset of media content items that are surfaced including the media content item with the one or more of the terms that control use of the media content item, wherein interactive elements exposed to the supervisor entity correspond to options previously selected by a source of the media content item as being acceptable, and wherein the surfacing comprises deterministically removing media content items having terms that fail to satisfy one or more threshold metrics specified by the supervisor entity”, as recited in independent claims 1, 7, and 15. Further, the prior art references do not provide a reasoned basis for combining their teachings to arrive at the clamed subject matter as a whole. Accordingly, claims 1, 7, and 15 are not obvious over the prior art. Claims 2-5, 8-14, and 17-20 are allowable for at least the reasons set forth above and their respective dependencies.
Conclusion
16. 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.
17. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHANNON S CAMPBELL whose telephone number is (571)272-5587. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7am-3:30pm.
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.
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.
/SHANNON S CAMPBELL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3628
