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, 7, 15, and 17-20 have been amended. Claims 6 and 16 and have been cancelled. No claims have been added. Thus, claims 1-5, 7-15, and 17-20 remain pending and are presented for examination.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 18 November 2025 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 18 November 2025 with respect to the 101 rejection of the claims have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant asserts that the amended claims recite “significantly more” than the abstract idea by describing a specific access-controlled licensing workflow that purportedly improves the operation of a networked platform. However, the features cited by Applicant —“verifying…presenting…and accepting the … terms…providing … the media content item and the license … as a smart contract…recording the license in a ledger maintained by the media content platform” are all part of the abstract idea grouping of organizing human activity (licensing and rights management) implemented using generic computer components performing their conventional functions. The specification describes these operations in terms of conventional computer activities: receiving requests over a network, checking stored registration data, gating access based on roles, presenting UI elements, recording transactions in a ledger or blockchain. There is no indication that the claimed steps require any unconventional hardware or that they improve the basic operation of the computer itself. Under MPEP § 2106.05(a), an improvement to computer functionality must be a technological solution to a technological problem, such as improving the speed, security, or efficiency of the computer itself or its network. Here, the claimed workflow enforces business rules for licensing media content. The claims do not recite, for example, a new identity-verification algorithm, a novel role-permission architecture, or an improved ledger data structure. Instead, they apply known components to a business process.
Applicant further argues that the claims are similar to that of DDR Holdings. However, the Examiner disagrees. In DDR, the claims were found eligible because they solved a problem unique to the Internet including retaining website visitors when they clicked on an advertisement, by modifying the conventional hyperlink protocol to produce a hybrid web page. That case involved a specific, non-generic modification to Internet functionality itself. In contrast, the present claims do not alter how the Internet, the network, or the platform’s underlying computer systems operate; they merely use known computing functions to implement an abstract licensing and access-control scheme.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the 103 rejections of the claims have been considered but are moot.
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 and 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; 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; presenting, control operable by the supervisor entity to select the media content item and accept the one or more terms; receiving a selection of the media content item for licensing by the supervisor entity transmitted of the supervisor entity; determining whether the selection includes an acceptance of the one or more terms that control use of the media content item; in response to determining that the selection includes the acceptance of the one or more terms: 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; and recording the license in a database; and in response to determining that the selection does not include the acceptance of the one or more terms, 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), “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). 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 connect 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.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 2, 7-9, 11-15, and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weich et al et al (US 2015/0026078) in view of Montler et al et al (US 2023/0058710) and Sado (US 2023/0169498) and Kannan et al (US 2022/0360833).
Claim 1. Weich et al teaches: A computer-implemented method comprising:
receiving, by a media content platform, 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, the media content platform being internet-connected (see, e.g., ¶ 20 teaching accessing or querying for a media content item that is owned by another; see additionally ¶s 15, 17, and 42 teaching that the media content platform may be on the internet);
listing the media content item on the media content platform, the listing enabling the media content item to be accessed via the media content platform and associating the media content item with one or more characteristics of the media content item and the one or more terms (see, e.g., ¶ 25 teaching that the querying entity selects a particular media content item to attempt to obtain authorized access; see also Figures 3-4 teaching media content store 140 with media content items 141A-N);
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 (see, e.g., ¶ 37 teaching surfacing only those items for which the content items are available based on the terms and the geographic location; see also ¶ 38 teaching substantially the same but providing based on date ranges rather than geographic areas; see further ¶ 41 teaching terms that control the media content item such as the portion or percentage or amount of the money collected that is to be returned to the owner);
receiving a selection of the media content item for licensing by the supervisor entity (see, e.g., at least ¶ 26 teaching an authorization indication that the user has complied with the terms and thus received the authorization, though Examiner notes that this limitation is further addressed below);
determining whether the selection includes an acceptance of the one or more terms (see, e.g., at least ¶s 26-27 teaching providing an authorization for access including items such as providing a token that identifies that the user has a license or other such rights or permissions and that it does so “upon determining that a user (i.e., the user/entity that selected the media content item at block 210) has complied with one or more requirements/directives dictated by the owner/provider of the media content item”);
generating a license associated with the media content item, the license including the one or more terms accepted by the supervisor entity (see, e.g., ¶s 25-26 teaching that the usage of the media content item is subject to a license, such as via generation engine 132 that generates an authorization indication that reflects the provision of the license to a particular user); and
providing, to the supervisor entity, the media content item and the license for accessing the media content item under the one or more terms (see, e.g., at least ¶s 26-27 teaching providing an authorization for access including items such as providing a token that identifies that the user has a license or other such rights or permissions and that it does so “upon determining that a user (i.e., the user/entity that selected the media content item at block 210) has complied with one or more requirements/directives dictated by the owner/provider of the media content item”); and
in response to determining that the selection does not include the acceptance of the one or more terms, preventing access to the media content item by the supervisor entity (see, e.g., ¶ 14 teaching “precluding/preventing unauthorized utilization of such content, such as by unauthorized users and/or under unauthorized circumstances;” see further ¶s 34 and 41 teaching determining whether the status of the media content item is authorized or unauthorized).
Weich et al does not explicitly disclose, however Montler et al discloses presenting, via the user interface, a selectable control operable by the supervisor entity to select the media content item and accept the one or more terms; receiving, via the user interface of the media content platform, a selection of the media content item for licensing by the supervisor entity transmitted from a supervisor device of the supervisor entity, (Figure 34 teaching an exemplary “checkout” user interface where a user can select a “buy and apply license” button to acknowledge acceptance of terms of a license, such as a “one time use” license “for a single vide in all global territories” and an expiration date; see also ¶ 78); storefront and purchase/activate UI elements for selecting and accepting license options (e.g., purchase interfaces, “Activate License” flows) are shown [Fig. 30–35, 42–44].
Montler et al is analogous to Weich et al and the instant application because it relates to a “content licensing platform and marketplace system,” such as for music licensing to content creators (see Montler et al ¶s 3-4).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date to apply the known technique of requiring acceptance of the terms (as disclosed by Montler et al) to the known method and system of licensing copyrighted content for use (as disclosed by Weich et al). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to apply the known technique of requiring acceptance of the terms because it would allow a monetization platform to document that a license for the asset has been acquired and applied to the content item (see Montler et al ¶ 78).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date to apply the known technique of requiring acceptance of the terms (as disclosed by Montler et al) to the known method and system of licensing copyrighted content for use (as disclosed by Weich et al), because the claimed invention is merely applying a known technique to a known method ready for improvement to yield predictable results. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 406 (2007). In other words, all of 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 with no change in their respective functions, 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 (i.e., predictable results are obtained by applying the known technique of requiring acceptance of the terms to the known method and system of licensing copyrighted content for use, because predictably a means of registering acceptance of the terms of the licensing agreement can be added within a system of recording licensing of particular content). See also MPEP § 2143(I)(D).
Weich et al in view of Montler et al does not teach, however Sado teaches verifying an identity of the artist based on registration data, and granting or denying role-based permissions to list media content items depending on a verification result (Registers creators/users; stores “registration data”; verifies information; maintains profiles (¶[0157]). Publishes/listing gated on verification of rights; can require identity/right verification before allowing publish (¶[0028]). Distinct roles (creator vs. user) imply role-based permissions (only creators may list/publish). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date to apply the known technique of verifying an identity if an artist to grant or deny permissions (as disclosed by Sado) to the known method and system of licensing copyrighted content for use (as disclosed by Weich et al in view of Montler et al). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to apply the known technique of granting or denying permissions because it would allow for intellectual property protection (see Sado ¶ 28).
While Weich et al in view of Montler et al discloses providing the media content item and the license for accessing the media content item under one or more terms (Weich et al 0021; 0028-0030), Weich et al in view of Montler et al does not disclose providing these items as a smart contract to a supervisor entity and recording the license in a ledger maintained by the media content platform. However, Kanan does teach this (Permissioned blockchain (Hyperledger Fabric) with member nodes incl. service provider and DRM provider; smart contract governs license transaction; UIs reflect additional licenses (¶[0040], ¶[0044], ¶[0056]). The service/DRM provider (supervisory role) receives state reflecting the licensed item; the smart contract embodies the license; Fabric peers (service provider/content provider/DRM provider) “maintain the ledger, and commit transactions” (¶[0040]); ledger reflects increased licenses and revenue (¶[0056])). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date to apply the known technique of providing media content access terms in a smart contract and the license in a ledger (as disclosed by Kannan et al) to the known method and system of licensing copyrighted content for use (as disclosed by Weich et al in view of Montler et al and Sado). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to apply the known technique of providing media content access terms in a smart contract and the license in a ledger to avoid erroneous, inefficient, and/or ambiguous transactions (see Kannan et al ¶ 3).
Claim 2. The combination of Weich et al and Montler et al, Sado, and Kannan et al et al teaches the limitations of Claim 1. Weich et al further teaches: The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the one or more terms include one or more of: an amount of time that the supervisor entity is permitted to use the media content item as part of a compilation of media content; one or more locations where the supervisor entity is permitted to use the media content item as part of the compilation of media content; one or more channels where the supervisor entity is permitted to use the media content item as part of the compilation of media content; or one or more mediums that the media content item is permitted to be incorporated (see, e.g., ¶ 26 teaching one or more locations limiting who is permitted to access the media content item).
Claim 7. Weich et al teaches: A computer-implemented method comprising:
receiving, by a media content platform, a request from an artist entity to enable access to a media content item of the artist entity, the media content platform being internet-connected (see, e.g., ¶ 20 teaching accessing or querying for a media content item that is owned by another; see additionally ¶s 15, 17, and 42 teaching that the media content platform may be on the internet);
displaying, by the media content platform, a user interface configured to enable the artist entity to define one or more terms that control access to the media content item (see, e.g., ¶ 14 teaching the media owner defining scope of authorizations and other defined parameters controlling access to the media content item);
receiving, via the user interface displayed by the media content platform and based on the verification result, user input defining the one or more terms that control access to the media content item (see, e.g., ¶s 25-27 noting that the media content items are subject to directives dictated by the media owner);
listing the media content item on the media content platform, the listing enabling the media content item to be accessed via the media content platform (see, e.g., ¶ 25 teaching that the querying entity selects a particular media content item to attempt to obtain authorized access; see also Figures 3-4 teaching media content store 140 with media content items 141A-N);
surfacing, to a supervisor entity via a user interface of the media content platform and for review prior to licensing selection, the media content item along with the defined one or more terms that control access to the media content item (see, e.g., ¶ 37 teaching surfacing only those items for which the content items are available based on the terms and the geographic location; see also ¶ 38 teaching substantially the same but providing based on date ranges rather than geographic areas; see further ¶ 41 teaching terms that control the media content item such as the portion or percentage or amount of the money collected that is to be returned to the owner);
receiving, via the user interface, a selection of the media content item for licensing by the supervisor entity (see, e.g., at least ¶ 26 teaching an authorization indication that the user has complied with the terms and thus received the authorization, though Examiner notes that this limitation is further addressed below);
determining whether the selection includes an acceptance of the one or more terms that control access to the media content item (see, e.g., at least ¶s 26-27 teaching providing an authorization for access including items such as providing a token that identifies that the user has a license or other such rights or permissions and that it does so “upon determining that a user (i.e., the user/entity that selected the media content item at block 210) has complied with one or more requirements/directives dictated by the owner/provider of the media content item”);
in response to determining that the selection includes acceptance of the one or more terms: generating a license associated with the media content item, the license including the one or more terms accepted by the supervisor entity (see, e.g., ¶s 25-26 teaching that the usage of the media content item is subject to a license, such as via generation engine 132 that generates an authorization indication that reflects the provision of the license to a particular user); and
outputting, to the artist entity, a notification that a supervisor entity has selected the media content item for access under the accepted terms (see, e.g., ¶s 21 and 26 teaching outputting a notification that the supervisor has selected the media content for access, such as via a token or other indication embedded in the media content item); and
providing, to the supervisor entity, the media content item and the license for accessing the media content item under the one or more terms (see, e.g., at least ¶s 26-27 teaching providing an authorization for access including items such as providing a token that identifies that the user has a license or other such rights or permissions and that it does so “upon determining that a user (i.e., the user/entity that selected the media content item at block 210) has complied with one or more requirements/directives dictated by the owner/provider of the media content item”); and
in response to determining that the selection does not include the acceptance of the one or more terms, preventing access to the media content item by the supervisor entity (see, e.g., ¶ 14 teaching “precluding/preventing unauthorized utilization of such content, such as by unauthorized users and/or under unauthorized circumstances;” see further ¶s 34 and 41 teaching determining whether the status of the media content item is authorized or unauthorized).
Weich et al does not explicitly disclose, however Montler et al discloses presenting, to the supervisor entity via the user interface, a selectable control to select the media content item and accept the one or more terms; receiving, via the user interface of the media content platform, a selection of the media content item for licensing by the supervisor entity transmitted from a supervisor device of the supervisor entity, (Figure 34 teaching an exemplary “checkout” user interface where a user can select a “buy and apply license” button to acknowledge acceptance of terms of a license, such as a “one time use” license “for a single vide in all global territories” and an expiration date; see also ¶ 78); storefront and purchase/activate UI elements for selecting and accepting license options (e.g., purchase interfaces, “Activate License” flows) are shown [Fig. 30–35, 42–44].
Montler et al is analogous to Weich et al and the instant application because it relates to a “content licensing platform and marketplace system,” such as for music licensing to content creators (see Montler et al ¶s 3-4).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date to apply the known technique of requiring acceptance of the terms (as disclosed by Montler et al) to the known method and system of licensing copyrighted content for use (as disclosed by Weich et al). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to apply the known technique of requiring acceptance of the terms because it would allow a monetization platform to document that a license for the asset has been acquired and applied to the content item (see Montler et al ¶ 78).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date to apply the known technique of requiring acceptance of the terms (as disclosed by Montler et al) to the known method and system of licensing copyrighted content for use (as disclosed by Weich et al), because the claimed invention is merely applying a known technique to a known method ready for improvement to yield predictable results. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 406 (2007). In other words, all of 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 with no change in their respective functions, 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 (i.e., predictable results are obtained by applying the known technique of requiring acceptance of the terms to the known method and system of licensing copyrighted content for use, because predictably a means of registering acceptance of the terms of the licensing agreement can be added within a system of recording licensing of particular content). See also MPEP § 2143(I)(D).
Weich et al in view of Montler et al does not teach, however Sado teaches verifying an identity of the artist entity, and setting role-based permissions that control which functionalities of the platform are visible or unlocked for the artist entity based on a verification result. (Registers creators/users; stores “registration data”; verifies information; maintains profiles (¶[0157]). Publishes/listing gated on verification of rights; can require identity/right verification before allowing publish (¶[0028]). Distinct roles (creator vs. user) imply role-based permissions (only creators may list/publish). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date to apply the known technique of verifying an identity if an artist to grant or deny permissions (as disclosed by Sado) to the known method and system of licensing copyrighted content for use (as disclosed by Weich et al in view of Montler et al). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to apply the known technique of granting or denying permissions because it would allow for intellectual property protection (see Sado ¶ 28).
While Weich et al in view of Montler et al discloses providing the media content item and the license for accessing the media content item under one or more terms (Weich et al 0021; 0028-0030), Weich et al in view of Montler et al does not disclose providing these items as a smart contract to a supervisor entity and recording the license in a ledger maintained by the media content platform. However, Kanan does teach this (Permissioned blockchain (Hyperledger Fabric) with member nodes incl. service provider and DRM provider; smart contract governs license transaction; UIs reflect additional licenses (¶[0040], ¶[0044], ¶[0056]). The service/DRM provider (supervisory role) receives state reflecting the licensed item; the smart contract embodies the license; Fabric peers (service provider/content provider/DRM provider) “maintain the ledger, and commit transactions” (¶[0040]); ledger reflects increased licenses and revenue (¶[0056])). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date to apply the known technique of providing media content access terms in a smart contract and the license in a ledger (as disclosed by Kannan et al) to the known method and system of licensing copyrighted content for use (as disclosed by Weich et al in view of Montler et al and Sado). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to apply the known technique of providing media content access terms in a smart contract and the license in a ledger to avoid erroneous, inefficient, and/or ambiguous transactions (see Kannan et al ¶ 3).
Claim 8. The combination of Weich et al and Montler et al, Sado, and Kannan et al teaches the limitations of Claim 7. Weich et al further teaches: The computer-implemented method of claim 7, wherein the notification includes an indication of which of the one or more terms were agreed to by the supervisor entity (see, e.g., ¶ 26 teaching providing the notification such as a token only when the terms are agreed to, noting that the authorization reflects the terms of the license).
Claim 9. The combination of Weich et al and Montler et al, Sado, and Kannan et al teaches the limitations of Claim 7. Weich et al further teaches: The computer-implemented method of claim 7, wherein the one or more terms include at least one of: an amount of time that the supervisor entity is permitted to use the media content item as part of a compilation of media content; one or more locations where the supervisor entity is permitted to use the media content item as part of the compilation of media content; one or more channels where the supervisor entity is permitted to use the media content item as part of the compilation of media content; or one or more mediums that the media content item is permitted to be incorporated (see, e.g., ¶ 26 teaching one or more locations limiting who is permitted to access the media content item).
Claim 11. The combination of Weich et al and Montler et al, Sado, and Kannan et al teaches the limitations of Claim 10. Weich et al further teaches: The computer-implemented method of claim 10, wherein the one or more recommended terms include a recommended amount of time that the supervisor entity is permitted to use the media content item as part of a compilation of media content (see, e.g., at least ¶ 36 teaching that the terms can include chronological/time-based parameters such as a date range).
Claim 12. The combination of Weich et al and Montler et al, Sado, and Kannan et al teaches the limitations of Claim 10. Weich et al further teaches: The computer-implemented method of claim 10, wherein the one or more recommended terms include one or more recommended channels where the supervisor entity is permitted to use the media content item as part of a compilation of media content (see, e.g., ¶ 21 teaching authorizing the content item within a particular channel; see also ¶ 36 teaching authorizing based on parameters such as a particular setting or context).
Claim 13. The combination of Weich et al and Montler et al, Sado, and Kannan et al teaches the limitations of Claim 10. Weich et al further teaches: The computer-implemented method of claim 10, wherein the one or more recommended terms include one or more recommended mediums that the media content item is permitted to be incorporated (see, e.g., ¶ 36 teaching authorizing based on parameters such as a particular setting or context).
Claim 14. The combination of Weich et al and Montler et al, Sado, and Kannan et al teaches the limitations of Claim 10. Weich et al further teaches: The computer-implemented method of claim 10, wherein the user input defining the one or more terms includes a selection of at least one of the one or more recommended terms (see, e.g., ¶ 14 teaching the media owner defining scope of authorizations and other defined parameters controlling access to the media content item, e.g., “geographic area, timeframe, duration, context, etc.”).
Claim 15. Weich et al teaches: A computer-implemented method comprising:
receiving, by a media content platform, a request from a supervisor entity to locate media content items available for licensing, the request including one or more characteristics of media content that the supervisor entity is searching for to use in a compilation, the media content platform being internet-connected (see, e.g., ¶ 20 teaching accessing or querying for a media content item that is owned by another; see additionally ¶s 15, 17, and 42 teaching that the media content platform may be on the internet);
surfacing, by the media content platform via a user interface, recommended media content items matching the one or more characteristics included in the request (see, e.g., ¶ 37 teaching surfacing only those items for which the content items are available based on the terms and the geographic location; see also ¶ 38 teaching substantially the same but providing based on date ranges rather than geographic areas);
displaying, to a supervisor entity and for review prior to selection, the surfaced media content item along with the associated licensing terms for the surfaced media content items defined by an artist entity associated with the surfaced media content items (see, e.g., ¶ 37 teaching surfacing only those items for which the content items are available based on the terms and the geographic location; see also ¶ 38 teaching substantially the same but providing based on date ranges rather than geographic areas; see further ¶ 41 teaching terms that control the media content item such as the portion or percentage or amount of the money collected that is to be returned to the owner);
receiving, by the media content platform, a selection of a media content item from the recommended media content items surfaced via the user interface (see, e.g., at least ¶ 26 teaching an authorization indication that the user has complied with the terms and thus received the authorization); and
determining whether the selection includes an acceptance of the associated licensing terms for the selected media content items (see, e.g., at least ¶s 26-27 teaching providing an authorization for access including items such as providing a token that identifies that the user has a license or other such rights or permissions and that it does so “upon determining that a user (i.e., the user/entity that selected the media content item at block 210) has complied with one or more requirements/directives dictated by the owner/provider of the media content item,” though Examiner notes that this is further addressed below);
in response to determining that the selection includes acceptance of the associated licensing terms for the selected media content item: generating a license associated with the media content item, the license comprising the accepted terms (see, e.g., ¶s 25-26 teaching that the usage of the media content item is subject to a license, such as via generation engine 132 that generates an authorization indication that reflects the provision of the license to a particular user); and
providing, to the supervisor entity, the media content item and the generated license for accessing the media content item under the accepted terms (see, e.g., at least ¶s 26-27 teaching providing an authorization for access including items such as providing a token that identifies that the user has a license or other such rights or permissions and that it does so “upon determining that a user (i.e., the user/entity that selected the media content item at block 210) has complied with one or more requirements/directives dictated by the owner/provider of the media content item”); and
in response to determining that the selection does not include the acceptance of the associated licensing terms, preventing access to the selected media content item by the supervisor entity (see, e.g., ¶ 14 teaching “precluding/preventing unauthorized utilization of such content, such as by unauthorized users and/or under unauthorized circumstances;” see further ¶s 34 and 41 teaching determining whether the status of the media content item is authorized or unauthorized).
Weich et al does not explicitly disclose, however Montler et al discloses presenting, to the supervisor entity, a user interface control operable by the supervisor entity to select a media content item from the surfaced media content items and to accept the associated licensing terms; receiving, by the media content platform and transmitted from a supervisor device of the supervisor entity, a selection of the media content item from the surfaced media content items (Figure 34 teaching an exemplary “checkout” user interface where a user can select a “buy and apply license” button to acknowledge acceptance of terms of a license, such as a “one time use” license “for a single vide in all global territories” and an expiration date; see also ¶ 78); storefront and purchase/activate UI elements for selecting and accepting license options (e.g., purchase interfaces, “Activate License” flows) are shown [Fig. 30–35, 42–44].
Montler et al is analogous to Weich et al and the instant application because it relates to a “content licensing platform and marketplace system,” such as for music licensing to content creators (see Montler et al ¶s 3-4).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date to apply the known technique of requiring acceptance of the terms (as disclosed by Montler et al) to the known method and system of licensing copyrighted content for use (as disclosed by Weich et al). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to apply the known technique of requiring acceptance of the terms because it would allow a monetization platform to document that a license for the asset has been acquired and applied to the content item (see Montler et al ¶ 78).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date to apply the known technique of requiring acceptance of the terms (as disclosed by Montler et al) to the known method and system of licensing copyrighted content for use (as disclosed by Weich et al), because the claimed invention is merely applying a known technique to a known method ready for improvement to yield predictable results. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 406 (2007). In other words, all of 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 with no change in their respective functions, 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 (i.e., predictable results are obtained by applying the known technique of requiring acceptance of the terms to the known method and system of licensing copyrighted content for use, because predictably a means of registering acceptance of the terms of the licensing agreement can be added within a system of recording licensing of particular content). See also MPEP § 2143(I)(D).
Weich et al in view of Montler et al does not teach, however Sado teaches verifying an identity of the artist entity, and setting role-based permissions that control which functionalities of the platform are visible or unlocked for the artist entity based on a verification result. (Registers creators/users; stores “registration data”; verifies information; maintains profiles (¶[0157]). Publishes/listing gated on verification of rights; can require identity/right verification before allowing publish (¶[0028]). Distinct roles (creator vs. user) imply role-based permissions (only creators may list/publish). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date to apply the known technique of verifying an identity if an artist to grant or deny permissions (as disclosed by Sado) to the known method and system of licensing copyrighted content for use (as disclosed by Weich et al in view of Montler et al). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to apply the known technique of granting or denying permissions because it would allow for intellectual property protection (see Sado ¶ 28).
While Weich et al in view of Montler et al discloses providing the media content item and the license for accessing the media content item under one or more terms (Weich et al 0021; 0028-0030), Weich et al in view of Montler et al does not disclose providing these items as a smart contract to a supervisor entity and recording the license in a ledger maintained by the media content platform. However, Kanan does teach this (Permissioned blockchain (Hyperledger Fabric) with member nodes incl. service provider and DRM provider; smart contract governs license transaction; UIs reflect additional licenses (¶[0040], ¶[0044], ¶[0056]). The service/DRM provider (supervisory role) receives state reflecting the licensed item; the smart contract embodies the license; Fabric peers (service provider/content provider/DRM provider) “maintain the ledger, and commit transactions” (¶[0040]); ledger reflects increased licenses and revenue (¶[0056])). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date to apply the known technique of providing media content access terms in a smart contract and the license in a ledger (as disclosed by Kannan et al) to the known method and system of licensing copyrighted content for use (as disclosed by Weich et al in view of Montler et al and Sado). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to apply the known technique of providing media content access terms in a smart contract and the license in a ledger to avoid erroneous, inefficient, and/or ambiguous transactions (see Kannan et al ¶ 3).
Claim 17. The combination of Weich et al and Montler et al, Sado, and Kannan et al teaches the limitations of Claim 15. Weich et al further teaches: The computer-implemented method of claim 15, wherein the associated licensing terms include at least one of an amount of time that the supervisor entity is permitted to use the media content item as part of a compilation of media content (see, e.g., at least ¶ 36 teaching that the terms can include chronological/time-based parameters such as a date range).
Claim 18. The combination of Weich et al and Montler et al, Sado and Kannan et al teaches the limitations of Claim 15. Weich et al further teaches: The computer-implemented method of claim 15, wherein the associated licensing terms include one or more locations where the supervisor entity is permitted to use the media content item as part of a compilation of media content (see, e.g., ¶ 36 teaching authorizing based on parameters such as a particular setting or context).
Claim 19. The combination of Weich et al and Montler et al, Sado, and Kannan et al teaches the limitations of Claim 15. Weich et al further teaches: The computer-implemented method of claim 15, wherein the associated licensing terms include one or more channels where the supervisor entity is permitted to use the media content item as part of the compilation of media content (see, e.g., ¶ 21 teaching authorizing the content item within a particular channel; see also ¶ 36 teaching authorizing based on parameters such as a particular setting or context).
Claim 20. The combination of Weich et al and Montler et al, Sado, and Kannan et al teaches the limitations of Claim 15. Weich et al further teaches: The computer-implemented method of claim 15, wherein the associated licensing terms include one or more mediums that the media content item is permitted to be incorporated (see, e.g., ¶ 36 teaching authorizing use of the media content based on parameters such as a particular setting or context).
Claims 3-5 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Weich et al in view of Montler et al, Sado (US2023/0169498) and Kannan et al (US 2022/0360833) above, and further in view of Wold et al. (US 2019/0205467 A1, hereinafter “Wold”).
Claim 3. The combination of Weich et al and Montler et al, Sado and Kannan et al teaches the limitations of Claim 1. That combination fails to further teach, however, analogous reference Wold teaches: The computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising processing the media content item by one or more models using machine learning to determine a portion of the media content item to surface for licensing (see, e.g., ¶ 45 teaching a media content identification service 170 that includes a machine learning profiler 155 and licensing logic 162; see additionally, e.g., ¶ 48 teaching using the machine learning to identify one or more classes of media content items to surface).
Weich et al teaches a method of searching for media content items to “surface” or return hits on that search that can be licensed and used. Weich et al (and Montler et al, Sado, and Kannan et al) fails to teach using machine learning as part of this process. Nevertheless, Wold teaches the use of machine learning as discussed above to determine media content. Wold is analogous to Weich et al, Montler et al, Sado, Kannan et al, and the instant application because it relates to the field of media content identification for sharing and licensing (see Wold ¶s 1-2). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date to apply the known technique of using machine learning (as disclosed by Wold) to the known method and system of providing a media content identification and licensing platform (as disclosed by Weich et al and Montler et al, Sado, and Kannan et al). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to apply the known technique of machine learning because the machine learning can identify features in a large set of music content databases (see Wold ¶s 47-48).
Claim 4. The combination of Weich et al and Montler et al, Sado, and Kannan et al teaches the limitations of Claim 1. Weich et al fails to further teach, however analogous reference Wold teaches: The computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising:
analyzing the media content item by one or more models using machine learning to generate one or more recommended terms that control use of the media content item (see, e.g., ¶ 45 teaching a media content identification service 170 that includes a machine learning profiler 155 and licensing logic 162; see additionally, e.g., ¶ 48 teaching using the machine learning to identify one or more classes of media content items to surface); and
surfacing the one or more recommended terms that control use of the media content item to the artist entity via the user interface (see, e.g., ¶s 48 and 52 teaching surfacing the relevant media content items based on the machine learning).
Weich et al teaches a method of searching for media content items to “surface” or return hits on that search that can be licensed and used. Weich et al (and Montler et al, Sado, and Kannan et al) fails to teach using machine learning as part of this process. Nevertheless, Wold teaches the use of machine learning to surface the recommended content items as discussed above. Wold is analogous to Weich et al, Montler et al, Sado, Kannan et al, and the instant application because it relates to the field of media content identification for sharing and licensing (see Wold ¶s 1-2). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date to apply the known technique of using machine learning (as disclosed by Wold) to the known method and system of providing a media content identification and licensing platform (as disclosed by Weich et al and Montler et al, Sado, and Kannan et al). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to apply the known technique of machine learning because the machine learning can identify features in a large set of music content databases (see Wold ¶s 47-48).
Claim 5. The combination of Weich et al and Montler et al, Sado, and Kannan et al teaches the limitations of Claim 1. That combination fails to further teach, however, Wold teaches: The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the surfacing further comprises:
receiving an additional request from the supervisor entity to locate media content items that are available for access, the additional request including one or more characteristics of media content that the supervisor entity is searching for to use in a compilation (see, e.g., ¶ 45 teaching a media content identification service 170 that includes a machine learning profiler 155 and licensing logic 162; see additionally, e.g., ¶ 48 teaching using the machine learning to identify one or more classes of media content items to surface);
matching, by one or more models using machine learning, media content items that are available for access based on the one or more characteristics of the additional request (see, e.g., ¶s 48 and 52 teaching surfacing the relevant media content items based on the machine learning); and
surfacing, to the supervisor entity via the user interface of the media content platform, the matching media content items (see, e.g., ¶s 48 and 52 teaching surfacing the relevant media content items based on the machine learning).
Weich et al teaches a method of searching for media content items to “surface” or return hits on that search that can be licensed and used. Weich et al (and Montler et al, Sado, and Kannan et al) fails to teach using machine learning as part of this process. Nevertheless, Wold teaches the use of machine learning as discussed above to match and surface the content. Wold is analogous to Weich et al, Montler et al, Sado, Kannan et al, and the instant application because it relates to the field of media content identification for sharing and licensing (see Wold ¶s 1-2). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date to apply the known technique of using machine learning (as disclosed by Wold) to the known method and system of providing a media content identification and licensing platform (as disclosed by Weich et al and Montler et al, Sado, and Kannan et al). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to apply the known technique of machine learning because the machine learning can identify features in a large set of music content databases (see Wold ¶s 47-48).
Claim 10. The combination of Weich et al and Montler et al, Sado, and Kannan et al teaches the limitations of Claim 7. That combination fails to further teach, however, analogous reference Wold teaches: The computer-implemented method of claim 7, further comprising:
analyzing the media content item by one or more models using machine learning to generate one or more recommended terms that control access to the media content item (see, e.g., ¶ 45 teaching a media content identification service 170 that includes a machine learning profiler 155 and licensing logic 162; see additionally, e.g., ¶ 48 teaching using the machine learning to identify one or more classes of media content items to surface); and
surfacing the one or more recommended terms that control access to the media content item to the artist entity via the user interface (see, e.g., ¶s 48 and 52 teaching surfacing the relevant media content items based on the machine learning).
Weich et al teaches a method of searching for media content items to “surface” or return hits on that search that can be licensed and used. Weich et al (and Montler et al, Sado, and Kannan et al) fails to teach using machine learning as part of this process. Nevertheless, Wold teaches the use of machine learning as discussed above to analyze and surface the content. Wold is analogous to Weich et al, Montler et al, Sado, Kannan et al, and the instant application because it relates to the field of media content identification for sharing and licensing (see Wold ¶s 1-2). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date to apply the known technique of using machine learning (as disclosed by Wold) to the known method and system of providing a media content identification and licensing platform (as disclosed by Weich et al and Montler et al, Sado, and Kannan et al). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to apply the known technique of machine learning because the machine learning can identify features in a large set of music content databases (see Wold ¶s 47-48).
Conclusion
20. 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