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 .
This is a Final Office Action in response to application 18/129,863 entitled "TEXT MICRO CONTENT MONETIZATION/INTERACTION ENGINE AND METHODS" filed on September 4, 2025, with claims 1 to 20 pending.
Status of Claims
Claim 1 has been amended and is hereby entered.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed September 4, 2025, has been entered. Claims 1-20 remain pending in the application. Applicant’s amendments to the Specification, Drawings, and/or Claims have been noted in response to the Non-Final Office Action mailed March 4, 2025.
Examiner’s Note
Intended use language is generally given limited patentable weight. See MPEP 2114(II) ("A claim containing a 'recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus’ if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987).”); see also MPEP 2103(C). Examples of claim limitations that are often found to precede intended use include “adapted to,” “capable of,” “sufficient to,” “whereby,” and “for.” The following limitations are interpreted as intended use limitations:
The Examiner would like to note that the claims are replete with intended use, however, to provide compact prosecution, the examiner has provided the mapping and rejections.
Claim 2: “to extract value out of content while protecting the set of creators' interests”
Claim 11: “provides value for a time spent by a creator and a consumer”
Claim 15: “absorb the platform-based text content”
Claim 18: “like upcoming artists having their own labels”
Claim 20: “create a sustainable creative business with complete freedom and control”
The Examiner determines the aforementioned intended use statements do not result in any structural nor manipulative difference between the claimed invention and the prior art. Therefore, the intended use statements are afforded limited patentable weight.
Specification Objections
The use of the terms MONGODB®, CHATGPT®, GRAPHQL ®, STRIPE®, YOUTUBE®, WORDPRESS®, MAILCHIMP®, and BARD® which are a trade names or marks used in commerce, have been noted in this application. They should be CAPITALIZED wherever they appear and be accompanied by the generic terminology.
Although the use of trade names and marks used in commerce (i.e., trademarks, service marks, certification marks, and collective marks) are permissible in patent applications, the proprietary nature of the marks should be respected and every effort made to prevent their use in any manner which might adversely affect their validity as commercial marks.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
The symbol “/” is at the end of many lines. Examiner is uncertain of the meaning.
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities:
“different blocks; etc.” should read, “different blocks, et cetera.”
Claims 19 and 20 are objected. Claim 19 states the following informalities:
“An text file...” should read, “A text file...”
“an text micro content monetization engine...” should read, “a text micro content monetization engine...”
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-20 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.
Examiner could not find the following concepts (or at least the specific terms) of independent Claim 1 within the Specification:
“gating”
“persisting… a parent-child hierarchy”
Examiner notes the Specification reads [0030] “Blocks can be arranged in parent/child hierarchies….”, nothing in the Specification describes persistent versus, presumably, transient parent/child hierarchies.
“UI rendering”
“non-overlapping”
“byte”
“character offset range”
“digital asset pointer”
“declared (integration)”
“declared (engagement)”
“commitment”
“capability token”
“permitted rights”
“price schedule”
“redacting”
“payment is validated”
Please identify where each concept is located within the Specification (preferably including the location and quoted language). The Applicant’s Remarks offered no indication where support for the amended limitations are located.
Therefore, the claims are rejected.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ). The term "etc.” (or et cetera) in Claims 5 lacks boundaries which renders the claim indefinite. Ending the claim with “different blocks, et cetera” leads to confusion over the intended scope of the claim. The abbreviation etc. or et cetera means a number of unspecified additional persons or things (Merriam-Webster Dictionary). It is unclear what other content would be included in the plurality of blocks beyond the listed elements of “optional comments, comments under a paywall, and reply to threads for different blocks”.
Claims 15-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ). The phrase "mimics a mental model of the creator” in Claims 15 lacks boundaries which renders the claim indefinite. The phrase "mimics a mental model of the creator” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The claim language is functional (describing the platform-based text content by what it does, not what it is) and one of ordinary skill in the art would not know from the claim what structure or steps are encompassed or needed.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ). The phrase "create a sustainable creative business with complete freedom and control in any currency of their choice” in Claims 20 lacks boundaries which renders the claim indefinite. The phrase is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The claim language is functional (describing the platform-based text content by what it does, not what it is) and one of ordinary skill in the art would not know from the claim what structure or steps are encompassed or needed.
Claims 13-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ). Claims 13 and 14 fail to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Claim 13 is claimed as being dependent on claim 14 ("The computerized method of claim 14"). Claim 14 is claimed as being dependent on claim 13 ("The computerized method of claim 13"). The claims are indefinite as the current claim language creates a circular dependency.
Claims 2, 6-9, 11-13, and 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "the multimedia media content platform." There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the platform-based multimedia content." There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the block level." There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
While Claim 1 recites, “recording, in a ledger module, micro-transactions corresponding to block-level accesses” and later “enabling block-level interactions”, it fails to introduce or define a “block” itself.
Dependent Claims 9, 10-18 are likewise rejected based on their dependencies
Claims 9, 11, 12, and 13 recite the limitation "the multimedia media content platform." There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Dependent Claims 10, 14-18 are likewise rejected based on their dependencies.
Claims 16 and 18 recite the limitation "the complete text." There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 17 recites the limitation "the user selects." There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 16 and 18 recite the limitation "the full content." There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Therefore the claims are rejected.
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 directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Please see MPEP 2106 for additional information regarding Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance.
Claims 1-20 are directed to a system, method/process, machine/apparatus, or composition of matter, which are/is one of the statutory categories of invention. (Step 1: YES).
The claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Independent Claim 1 recites:
“…of …for text micro-content monetization, comprising: initializing a network-accessible service that exposes an authenticated …for uploading, segmenting, gating, and rendering text content;
receiving, …a text content object from a creator device, storing the text content object in a content store, and generating a canonical content identifier (CID) for the text content object;
segmenting, by a segmentation module, the text content object into a plurality of non-overlapping blocks each defined by byte or character offset ranges and assigned a unique block identifier (BID);
associating, in a block-graph data structure, each block with block-level metadata comprising digital asset pointers, declared integrations, declared engagements, and access-control attributes;
persisting, for the text content object, a parent-child hierarchy among the plurality of blocks in the block-graph to enable nesting and inheritance of access-control attributes;
for at least one selected block, enforcing a paywall by computing a block commitment over the block payload and metadata, issuing a capability token that encodes the BID, permitted rights, and a price schedule defined in fiat and/or crypto, and verifying, [during UI rendering], the capability token and gating rendering of the selected block by dynamically redacting the block payload unless payment is validated
recording, in a ledger module, micro-transactions corresponding to block-level accesses…and, optionally, …without exposing private keys to client devices;
rendering, …a visual representation of the plurality of blocks according to the block-graph layout and tags, including displaying relations among different blocks, placing a block behind the paywall, tagging blocks, and enabling block-level interactions comprising purchase, comment, and reply operations with thread identifiers; and
…redaction-aware manifests that specify which portions of the text content object are unlocked for the consumer device based on validated capability tokens and role-based access control (RBAC).”
These limitations clearly relate to managing transactions/interactions between consumers and content creators. These limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitation as certain methods of organizing human activity. Specific instances include instructions for “text micro-content monetization” and “recording, in a ledger module, micro-transactions” and “enforcing a paywall” and “redacting the block payload unless payment is validated” recite a fundamental economic principles or practice and/or commercial or legal interactions. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation as a fundamental economic, commercial, or financial action, principle, or practice then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. (Step 2A-Prong 1: YES. The claims recite an abstract idea).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims recite the additional elements of:
[A computer-implemented method executed by one or more processors] [application programming interface (API) and a browser-rendered user interface (UI)] [via the API,] [in the UI,]:
merely applying computer processing, storage, networking, and user-interface technology as tools to perform an abstract idea
[a blockchain network][the ledger module being configured to interoperate with a fiat payment processor]:
merely applying blockchain technology as tools to perform an abstract idea
[transmitting, to consumer devices]:
insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception of data gathering
are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer components and/or electronic processes. For example, the Applicant’s Specification reads,
[0026] Furthermore, the described features, structures, or characteristics of the invention may be combined in any suitable manner...One skilled in the relevant art can recognize, however, that the invention may be practiced without one or more of the specific details, or with other methods, components, materials, and so forth. In other instances, well-known structures, materials, or operations are not shown or described in detail to avoid obscuring aspects of the invention.
[0043] Platform 100 can utilize various microservices system for different APIs.
[0092] the various devices, modules, etc. described herein can be enabled and operated using hardware circuitry, firmware, software or any combination of hardware, firmware, and software
[0093] it can be appreciated that the various operations, processes, and methods disclosed herein can be embodied in a machine-readable medium and/or a machine accessible medium compatible with a data processing system (e.g., a computer system), and can be performed in any order
Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The additional elements merely add 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 elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea and are at a high level of generality. Therefore, Claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea without a practical application. (Step 2A-Prong 2: NO. The additional claimed elements are not integrated into a practical application)
Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The additional elements merely add 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, the additional elements, do not change the outcome of the analysis, when considered separately and as an ordered combination. The claim further defines the abstract idea and hence is abstract for the reasons presented above. The claim does not include any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception when considered both individually and as an ordered combination. Therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea. Thus, the claim is not patent eligible. (Step 2B: NO. The claim does not provide significantly more)
Dependent Claims recite additional elements.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the recited additional elements of
Claim 2:
“computerized”: merely applying computer processing, storage, networking, and user-interface technology as tools to perform an abstract idea
Claim 3:
“computerized”: merely applying computer processing, storage, networking, and user-interface technology as tools to perform an abstract idea
“webpage”: generally linking to Internet website development as a tool to perform an abstract idea
Claim 4:
“computerized”: merely applying computer processing, storage, networking, and user-interface technology as tools to perform an abstract idea
Claim 5:
“computerized”: merely applying computer processing, storage, networking, and user-interface technology as tools to perform an abstract idea
Claim 6:
“computerized”: merely applying computer processing, storage, networking, and user-interface technology as tools to perform an abstract idea
“crypto-currency”: merely applying distributed ledger technology as a tool to perform an abstract idea
Claim 7-10:
“computerized”: merely applying computer processing, storage, networking, and user-interface technology as tools to perform an abstract idea
Claim 11:
“computerized”: merely applying computer processing, storage, networking, and user-interface technology as tools to perform an abstract idea
“blockchain”: merely applying distributed ledger technology as a tool to perform an abstract idea
Claim 12:
“computerized”: merely applying computer processing, storage, networking, and user-interface technology as tools to perform an abstract idea
“crypto-currency”: merely applying distributed ledger technology as a tool to perform an abstract idea
Claim 13-18:
“computerized”: merely applying computer processing, storage, networking, and user-interface technology as tools to perform an abstract idea
are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer components and/or electronic processes. For support from the Applicant’s Specification, see the analysis as applied to Independent Claim 1 (Step 2A-Prong 2) earlier. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The additional elements merely add 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 elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea and are at a high level of generality. Therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea without a practical application. (Step 2A-Prong 2: NO. The additional claimed elements are not integrated into a practical application)
Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The additional elements merely add 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 elements, do not change the outcome of the analysis, when considered separately and as an ordered combination. Dependent claims further define the abstract idea that is present in their respective independent claims and hence are abstract for the reasons presented above. The dependent claims do not include any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception when considered both individually and as an ordered combination. For these reasons, there is no inventive concept. The claims are not patent eligible. Therefore, the dependent claims are directed to an abstract idea. Thus, the dependent claims are not patent eligible. (Step 2B: NO. The claims do not provide significantly more)
Independent Claim 19 recites:
“An text file micro content monetization method comprising: providing an text micro content monetization … wherein the text micro content monetization … comprises a SaaS ... that performs: receiving an text content from a creator entity;
enabling the creator entity to select a smaller portion of the text content to transform it into a text micro content;
for the creator entity, enabling a micro transaction for the micro text content in any currency of a user's choice;
adding a pay block to the micro text content to implement the micro transaction; and enabling the user to access the text micro content by paying only for the pay block applied by the creator.”
These limitations clearly relate to managing transactions/interactions between consumers and content creators. These limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitation as certain methods of organizing human activity. Specific instances include instructions for “content monetization” and “enabling a micro transaction” and “adding a pay block… by paying only for the pay block applied” recite a fundamental economic principles or practice and/or commercial or legal interactions. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation as a fundamental economic, commercial, or financial action, principle, or practice then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. (Step 2A-Prong 1: YES. The claims recite an abstract idea).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims recite the additional elements of:
[engine]:
merely applying computer processing, storage, networking, and user-interface technology as tools to perform an abstract idea
are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer components and/or electronic processes. For support from the Applicant’s Specification, see the analysis as applied to Independent Claim 1 (Step 2A-Prong 2) earlier. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The additional elements merely add 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 elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea and are at a high level of generality. Therefore, Claim 19 is directed to an abstract idea without a practical application. (Step 2A-Prong 2: NO. The additional claimed elements are not integrated into a practical application)
Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The additional elements merely add 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, the additional elements, do not change the outcome of the analysis, when considered separately and as an ordered combination. The claim further defines the abstract idea and hence is abstract for the reasons presented above. The claim does not include any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception when considered both individually and as an ordered combination. Therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea. Thus, the claim is not patent eligible. (Step 2B: NO. The claim does not provide significantly more)
Dependent Claims recite additional elements.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the recited additional elements of
Claim 20:
“crypto currency”: merely applying distributed ledger technology as a tool to perform an abstract idea
“engine”, “platform”: merely applying computer processing, storage, networking, and user-interface technology as tools to perform an abstract idea
are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer components and/or electronic processes. For support from the Applicant’s Specification, see the analysis as applied to Independent Claim 1 (Step 2A-Prong 2) earlier. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The additional elements merely add 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 elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea and are at a high level of generality. Therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea without a practical application. (Step 2A-Prong 2: NO. The additional claimed elements are not integrated into a practical application)
Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The additional elements merely add 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 elements, do not change the outcome of the analysis, when considered separately and as an ordered combination. Dependent claims further define the abstract idea that is present in their respective independent claims and hence are abstract for the reasons presented above. The dependent claims do not include any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception when considered both individually and as an ordered combination. For these reasons, there is no inventive concept. The claims are not patent eligible. Therefore, the dependent claims are directed to an abstract idea. Thus, the dependent claims are not patent eligible. (Step 2B: NO. The claims do not provide significantly more)
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Ginter ("SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR SECURE TRANSACTION MANAGEMENT AND ELECTRONIC RIGHTS PROTECTION", U.S. Publication Number: 20040054630 A1)
Regarding Claim 19,
Ginter teaches,
An text file micro content monetization method comprising: providing an text micro content monetization engine,
(Ginter [1941] This information may take the form of formal documents, electronic mail messages, text files, multimedia files, etc,,
Ginter [0194] a portion of said extracted content, such as material authored by the extractor and/or content (for example, images, video, audio, and/or text) extracted from one or more other VDE container objects
Ginter [1941] This information may take the form of formal documents, electronic mail messages, text files, multimedia files, etc,,
Ginter [0099] enable commercially provided electronic content to be made available to users in user defined portions, rather than constraining the user to use portions of content that were "predetermined" by a content creator and/or other provider for billing purposes.)
wherein the text micro content monetization engine comprises a SaaS engine
(Ginter [1753] agent execution and software description list services compatible with VDE as a service to smart objects.
Ginter [0796] The preferred embodiment API Service Manager 742 is implemented as a service interface to the RPC service manager
Examiner considers “VDE as a service” and “API Service Manager …implemented as a service interface” as types of SaaS)
that performs: receiving an text content from a creator entity;
(Ginter [1941] employees …This information may take the form of formal documents, electronic mail messages, text files, multimedia files, etc)
enabling the creator entity to select a smaller portion of the text content to transform it into a text micro content;
(Ginter [0391] “rules and controls”...may grant specific individuals or classes of content users 112 “permission” to use certain content. They may specify what kinds of content usage are permitted, and what kinds are not.
Ginter [1974] A group of users could create a VDE document incrementally, by building it from individual contributions. These contributions would be bound together within a single controlled document, but each would be individually identified, for example, through their incorporation in VDE content containers as embedded container objects.
Ginter [1981] Some VDE participants may create or provide content and/or VDE content container objects, and then store content and/or content objects at a repository so that other participants may access such content
Ginter [1842] users may create VDE objects 300 by, for example, partitioning the objects)
for the creator entity, enabling a micro transaction for the micro text content in any currency of a user's choice;
(Ginter [0214] metering, auditing, billing, and budgeting methods, the present invention is able to efficiently, concurrently support multiple financial currencies (e.g. dollars, marks, yen)
Ginter [1886] A budget may be specified in dollars, deutsche marks, yen, and/or in any other monetary or content measurement schema and/or organization.)
adding a pay block to the micro text content to implement the micro transaction; and enabling the user to access the text micro content by paying only for the pay block applied by the creator.
(Ginter [0391] “rules and controls”...may grant specific individuals or classes of content users 112 “permission” to use certain content. They may specify what kinds of content usage are permitted, and what kinds are not. They may specify how content usage is to be paid for and how much it costs.
Ginter [0422] limitations on usage of information content 304, and how usage will be paid for.
Ginter [1074] a usage map data area may be used by a meter method 1000 to record all applicable portions of information content that the user has paid to use)
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ginter ("SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR SECURE TRANSACTION MANAGEMENT AND ELECTRONIC RIGHTS PROTECTION", U.S. Publication Number: 20040054630 A1)in view of Sharp (“SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR DISTRIBUTING, RECEIVING, AND USING FUNDS OR CREDITS AND APPARATUS THEREOF”, U.S. Publication Number: 20160012465 A1)
Regarding Claim 20,
Ginter teaches the content monetization of Claim 19 as described earlier.
Ginter teaches,
wherein the micro text content comprises a subset of seconds or pixels of the text content,
(Ginter [1974] A group of users could create a VDE document incrementally, by building it from individual contributions. These contributions would be bound together within a single controlled document, but each would be individually identified, for example, through their incorporation in VDE content containers as embedded container objects.
Ginter [1981] Some VDE participants may create or provide content and/or VDE content container objects
Ginter [1397] Fingerprinting 2161 can take many forms. For example, in an image, the color of every N pixels (spread across an image, or spread across a subset of the image) might be subtly shifted in a visually unnoticeable manner
Examiner notes the Specification reads [0009] "SaaS engine which enables micro transactions for any part (e.g. pixels, words, characters in an text file, seconds, or minutes) of a creator's content" and [0030] "Block can be a text word, text paragraph, pixels, audio (e.g. in terms of seconds, minutes, etc.), image (e.g. in terms of pixels)" Therefore, a pixel represents any subpart of computer-uploaded content. )
wherein the any currency of the user's choice comprises a fiat currency,
(Ginter [0214] metering, auditing, billing, and budgeting methods, the present invention is able to efficiently, concurrently support multiple financial currencies (e.g. dollars, marks, yen)
Ginter [1886] A budget may be specified in dollars, deutsche marks, yen, and/or in any other monetary or content measurement schema and/or organization.)
and an ad block,
(Ginter [0184] employ “templates” to ease the process of....advertisements
Ginter [0200] compensation based upon the use and/or exposure to VDE managed content. Such metering is a flexible basis for ...advertising)
and wherein the text micro content monetization engine provides and manages a SaaS technology platform and ecosystem that enables to build unique and novel monetization avenues
(Ginter [1753] agent execution and software description list services compatible with VDE as a service to smart objects.
Ginter [0796] The preferred embodiment API Service Manager 742 is implemented as a service interface to the RPC service manage
Ginter [0391] They may specify how content usage is to be paid for and how much it costs.
Ginter [0422] and how usage will be paid for.
Ginter [1074] a usage map data area may be used by a meter method 1000 to record all applicable portions of information content that the user has paid to use
Ginter[1898] That is, the “new” encumbrance budget is unique from a tracking point of view, but indistinguishable from a usage point of view. )
and create a sustainable creative business with complete freedom and control in any currency of their choice.
(Ginter [0214] metering, auditing, billing, and budgeting methods, the present invention is able to efficiently, concurrently support multiple financial currencies (e.g. dollars, marks, yen)
Ginter [1886] A budget may be specified in dollars, deutsche marks, yen, and/or in any other monetary or content measurement schema and/or organization.)
Response to Remarks
Applicant's arguments filed on September 4, 2025, have been fully considered and Examiner’s remarks to Applicant’s amendments follow.
Response Remarks on Objections
The Applicant made no effort to address Specification Objections.
Applicant’s amendments, with respect to the previous Claim Objections, the Applicant only addressed issues in Claim 1. The other claim concerns remain unaddressed.
The Objections remain.
Response Remarks on Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Applicant’s amendments, with respect to the previous rejection of claims under 35 USC § 112, the Applicant only addressed issues in Claim 1. The other claim concerns remain unaddressed.
The rejection under 35 USC § 112 remains.
Response Remarks on Claim Rejections - 35 USC 101
The Applicant states:
“Applicant respectfully submits that the amended claims recite significantly more than an abstract economic practice. The claims now include specific technical operations, such as: (i) segmenting a text content object into offset-ranged blocks with BIDs; (ii) associating each block in a block-graph data structure with metadata; (iii) enforcing a paywall by computing a cryptographic commitment, issuing a capability token, and verifying that token at render-time; (iv) recording micro- transactions in a ledger module configured to interoperate with fiat processors and blockchain networks without exposing private keys; and (v) transmitting redaction- aware manifests to client devices for secure rendering. These limitations amount to a practical application that improves the functioning of the computer and provides a specific technological solution to the problem of secure, fine-grained digital content monetization."
Examiner responds:
Examiner asserts that “(i) segmenting a text content object into offset-ranged blocks with BIDs; (ii) associating each block in a block-graph data structure with metadata; (iii) enforcing a paywall … issuing a capability token, and verifying that token at render-time; (iv) recording micro- transactions in a ledger module configured to interoperate with fiat processors … without exposing private keys” and “fine-grained digital content monetization” both express abstract ideas.
They amount to gathering, sharing, and manipulation of data that expresses an Abstract Idea [Intellectual Ventures I v. Capital One Fin. Corp., 850 F.3d 1332, 121 USPQ2d 1940 (Fed. Cir. 2017) “collecting, displaying, and manipulating data” was considered part of the abstract idea], and Selecting A Particular Data Source or Type Of Data To Be Manipulated [Selecting information, based on types of information and availability of information in a power-grid environment, for collection, analysis and display, Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354-55, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016)]
The additional elements such as blockchain network and transmitting data to client devices do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. There is no improvement to generic blockchain technology, it is merely applied as expected.
Therefore, the rejection under 35 USC § 101 remains.
Response Remarks on Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
Applicant's amendments required the application of no new/additional prior art.
The Applicant states:
“The cited references do not teach or suggest the amended combination of features. For instance, none of the references disclose the segmentation of text content objects into immutable offset-ranged blocks assigned BIDs, nor the construction of a block-graph data structure that persists parent-child hierarchies for access-control inheritance. Further, the cited art does not anticipate the claimed capability token that encodes a BID and price schedule for paywall enforcement, nor the rendering of redaction-aware manifests that selectively gate content at the client side. The cited references teach generic paywalls or micropayments, but not the specific technical architecture recited in the amended claims… The prior art does not teach or suggest (i) offset-ranged segmentation enabling reconstruction of purchased blocks across edits, (ii) a ledger module configured to interoperate with blockchain networks while concealing private keys from clients, or (iii) redaction-aware manifests that allow client-side placeholders while preventing disclosure of locked content. "
Examiner responds:
Neither the claims nor specification discuss immutability.
The specification does not discuss offset-ranges.
The specification does not discuss persistent parent-child hierarchies.
The specification does not discuss encoding.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies are not recited in the rejected claim(s) and often not described in the specification. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Claims 1-18 have not been addressed under 35 USC § 102/103 until Applicant rectifies matters related to the Claim Objections and Rejections under 35 USC § 112.
Therefore, the rejection under 35 USC § 102/103 remains.
Prior Art Cited But Not Applied
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Johnston (“Systems and methods for a comprehensive integrated and universal content selling and buying platform”, U.S. Publication Number: 20100114739 A1) proposes a self-service by a seller to establish at a hosted service a store front that is distributable across a plurality of third party hosts includes receiving, by a hosted service operating on one or more servers, specification of one or more items to be displayed for sale in a store front for a seller. Responsive to the specification, the hosted service generates a portable widget for the store front identifying the one or more items for sale. The hosted service may receive from the seller identification of one or more third party hosts to which to publish the portable widget of the store front. The hosted service may initiate publishing of the portable widget of the store front to the one or more third party hosts.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHINEDU EKECHUKWU whose telephone number is (571)272-4493. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri 9 AM ET to 3:30 PM ET.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone 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, Christine Tran, can be reached on (571) 272-8103. 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.
/C.E./Examiner, Art Unit 3695
/CHRISTINE M Tran/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3695