DETAILED ACTION
Acknowledgements
This Final Office Action is in reply to Applicant’s response filed August 14, 2025.
Claims 1-20 were originally filed 4/2/2023. Claims 4 and 8 are currently cancelled. Claims 1, 5, 9, 19, and 20 are currently amended.
Claims 1-3, 5-7, 9-20 are currently pending.
Claims 1-3, 5-7, 9-20 have been examined.
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 .
Response to Amendment
The reply filed on 8/14/2025 is not fully responsive to the prior Office action because of the following omission(s) or matter(s):
There are numerous claim objections, 112(a) rejections, and 112(b) rejections given in the previous Office Action for which the Applicant has made no amendment and has not provided any argument.
Applicants are given actual notice that any future amendments must be fully responsive to all objections and rejections in the previous Office Action.
Additionally, in the current claim amendment filed 8/14/2025, claim 19 contains, in the “providing…” step, new language which is not underlined (“SaaS platform integration across multiple external platforms”).
37 C.F.R. §1.121 sets forth the manner of making claim amendments. In particular, §1.121(c)(2) states that “the text of any added subject matter must be shown by underlining the added text.”
Applicants are given actual notice that should any future amendment be non-compliant because the amendment does not (for any reason) comply with 37 C.F.R. §1.121 (as discussed in MPEP §714), the amendment will be considered a non-compliant amendment and the Examiner will issue a “Notice of Non-Compliant Amendment (37 CFR 1.121)” See USPTO Form PTOL-324.
Notwithstanding the issues above, the 2025 August Claim Amendments are being examined and an office action on the merits is set forth below.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because “provides an online audio sharing or social media platforms which facilitate” should be “provides an online audio sharing or social media platform which facilitates” and “an audio podcast streaming platforms” should be “an audio podcast streaming platform”.
Claim 1 is additionally objected to because it recites “a data accessible by the UI Manager for user interface rendering;” and there is no antecedent basis for a UI Manager.
Claim 18 is objected to because “wherein the complete audio is uploaded put behind a paywall” should be “wherein the complete audio is uploaded and put behind a paywall”.
Claims 16 and 18 are objected to because “the complete audio” should be “a complete audio”. There is no antecedent basis for “the complete audio”.
Claim 17 is objected to because it refers to “the pay block”. There is a lack of antecedent basis because there is no prior reference to a pay block.
Claim 19 is objected to because “transform it into a audio micro content” should be “transform it into an audio micro content”.
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 1-3, 5-7, 9-20 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.
Regarding claims 1-3, 5-7, 9-18
Claim 1 recites, in relevant part:
providing a set of platform-based audio content, wherein the set of platform-based audio content provides an online audio sharing or social media platforms which facilitate users to upload audios of various formats, wherein the set of platform-based audio content provides an audio podcast streaming platforms where content plays a major role;
“Platform-based audio content” is interpreted as audio data. There is no written description of how audio data performs the claimed action of providing an online audio sharing or social media platforms which facilitates users to upload audios or providing an audio podcast streaming platform.
Claim 1 further recites, in relevant part:
the block level comprises a subset of seconds level enabling subset of seconds level data access;
The application as originally filed does not disclose a block level comprising a subset of seconds level because it does not even mention “a subset of seconds level”. The above is therefore new matter.
Regarding claim 3
Claim 3 recites:
The computerized method of claim 1, wherein each block is merged into a user's home webpage.
“Block” is interpreted as referring to a user interface element. “User’s home webpage” is interpreted as a webpage which a user has set as the starting webpage when opening a browser application. Under this interpretation it is unclear what actions are performed to merge a block into a home webpage, and the specification does not provide any description.
Regarding claims 19-20
Claim 19 recites, in relevant part:
wherein the audio micro content monetization engine comprises an SaaS platform integration across multiple external platforms wherein the audio micro content monetization engine comprises a SaaS engine that performs:
The application as originally filed does not disclose an engine comprising an SaaS platform integration across multiple external platforms. The above is therefore new matter.
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.
Claims 1-3, 5-7, 9-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1-3, 5-7, 9-18
Claim 1 recites, in relevant part:
the block level comprises a subset of seconds level enabling subset of seconds level data access;
Applicant’s recitation “subset of seconds level” would have been unclear to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. First, the examiner has carefully reviewed the specification and was unable to locate a lexicographic definition for this term. Second, the examiner has again reviewed all documents of record in accordance with MPEP § 2141.03 and was unable to locate a definition for this term. Based upon the reviews of the specification and the documents of record, it is the examiner’s position that the term “subset of seconds level” (as used in the context of these particular claims) is not known to those of ordinary skill in this art. For the purpose of comparison with the prior art and determination of patent eligibility, the examiner is interpreting a “subset of seconds level” as audio content.
Regarding claim 12
Claim 12 recites:
The computerized method of claim 11, wherein the multimedia media content platform provides a community crypto-currency.
It is unclear what limitation is imposed by the word “community”. The specification does not define this term and there is no accepted meaning for the term as it relates to a crypto-currency.
Regarding claims 13-18
These claims are indefinite by virtue of having a circular dependency chain (claim 13 is dependent on claim 14, claim 14 is dependent on claim 13).
Regarding claim 15
Claim 15 recites:
The computerized method of claim 14, wherein the platform-based audio content mimics a mental model of the creator that provides a navigation model for a consumer to navigate and absorb the platform-based audio content.
The phrase “mimics a mental model of the creator” 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 audio content by what it does, not what it is) and one of ordinary skill in the art would not know from the claim what steps are encompassed or needed.
Regarding claim 18
Claim 18 recites, in relevant part:
wherein the set of platform-based audio content provides a plurality of creator spaces where validation of the audio content is expected before purchasing the complete set of offerings like upcoming artists having their own labels.
The phrase "like…" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Regarding claims 19-20
Claim 19 recites, in relevant part:
wherein the audio micro content monetization engine comprises an SaaS platform integration across multiple external platforms wherein the audio micro content monetization engine comprises a SaaS engine that performs:
The phrase “comprises an SaaS platform integration across multiple external platforms” 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. It is not clear what an SaaS platform integration is or how something can comprise it. Additionally, “external” is a relative term and it is not clear what the platforms are external relative to.
Regarding claim 20
Claim 20 recites, in relevant part:
wherein the audio micro content monetization engine provides and manages a SaaS technology platform and ecosystem that enables to build unique and novel monetization avenues and create a sustainable creative business with complete freedom and control in any currency of their choice.
The phrase “enables to build unique and novel monetization avenues and create a sustainable creative business with complete freedom and control in any currency of their choice” 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 audio micro content monetization engine by what it does, not what it is) and one of ordinary skill in the art would not know from the claim what steps are encompassed or needed.
Claim 20 further recites, in relevant part:
wherein the currency of the user's choice comprises a fiat currency, a crypto currency, and an ad block,
The claim uses the word “currency” (not “currencies”) and it is therefore unclear how the currency of the user’s choice can comprise multiple currencies. It is not clear if the claim requires the pay block to support multiple currencies simultaneously. For prior art purposes the claim is being interpreted as though it read “or an ad block”.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(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.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ginter et al. (US 20040054630 A1).
Regarding claim 19
Ginter discloses:
An audio file micro content monetization method comprising:
providing an audio micro content monetization engine, wherein the audio micro content monetization engine enables:
creator entity control over selection of audio portions for monetization;
multiple unlock mechanisms including fiat currency, crypto currency, and ad block options;
granular segmentation enabling monetization at a subset of seconds level, {[0099] “VDE [content monetization engine] can further be used to 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.”}
Ginter discloses providing a content monetization engine. What the engine enables is not given patentable weight because it is not a method step and merely expresses and intended result. Additionally, the description of the content as audio micro content is not given patentable weight because it non-functional descriptive material since it does not affect the performance of any method step.
wherein the audio micro content monetization engine comprises an SaaS platform integration across multiple external platforms wherein the audio micro content monetization engine comprises a SaaS engine that performs:
receiving an audio content from a creator entity; {[0007] “The popularization of on-line services has also enabled the individual personal computer user to participate as a content provider.”}
enabling the creator entity to select a smaller portion of the audio content to transform it into a[n] audio micro content; {[0099] “VDE can further be used to enable commercially provided electronic content to be made available to users in user defined portions”}
for the creator entity, enabling a micro transaction for the micro audio content in any currency of a user's choice; {[0214] “metering, auditing, billing, and budgeting methods, the present invention is able to efficiently, concurrently support multiple financial currencies (e.g. dollars, marks, yen)”}
adding a pay block to the micro audio content to implement the micro transaction; and
enabling the user to access the audio micro content by paying only for the pay block applied by the creator. {[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.”}
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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.
Claims 1-3, 5, 7, 9-11, 13-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ginter et al. (US 20040054630 A1) in view of Wikipedia “Document Object Model”.
Regarding claim 1
Ginter teaches:
A computerized method of a platform for audio micro content monetization comprising:
providing the platform, wherein the platform comprises a multimedia media content platform {[0099] “VDE [platform] can further be used to enable commercially provided electronic content [multimedia] 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.”}
that provides a set of functionalities of a user interface, {[0061] “VDE also includes certain user interface subsystems for satisfying the needs of content providers, distributors, and users.”}
wherein the platform comprises a datastore connected via computer networks that stores:
a plurality of digital assets associated with each block; {[0099] “VDE can further be used to enable commercially provided electronic content [digital assets]”}
a data accessible by the UI Manager for user interface rendering; {[0099] “VDE can further be used to enable commercially provided electronic content [data]”}
providing a set of platform-based audio content, wherein the set of platform-based audio content provides an online audio sharing or social media platforms which facilitate users to upload audios of various formats, (Ginter [0007] “The popularization of on-line services [platform] has also enabled [facilitate] the individual personal computer user to participate as a content provider [upload].”)
wherein the set of platform-based audio content provides an audio podcast streaming platforms where content plays a major role; {Ginter [0125] “Distribution may be by, for example, physical media delivery, broadcast and/or telecommunication means, and in the form of ‘static’ files and/or streams of data.”}
“Where content plays a major role” is an intended result not given patentable weight.
enable one or more micro-transactions for the platform-based audio content among a plurality of users.
put a block behind a paywall, {[0391] “the ‘rules and controls’ shown in FIG. 2 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.”}
“Block” is interpreted as a user interface element, such as a piece of multimedia.
add one or more tags to each block, and {[0288] “A tag is a keyword or term associated with content… a tag cloud is a graphical representation of tags that are indexed within the OWJO content search engine”
[0825] “data structures such as UDEs 1200 and/or MDEs 1202, along with various key blocks, tags”}
providing a set of platform-based audio content comprising:
audio content in various formats uploaded by users;
audio podcast streaming delivered as streams of data;
audio performance-based content;
wherein the audio content is processed to enable:
transformation of selected portions into audio micro content;
granular segmentation at a subset of seconds level; and
user-selectable audio portions for paywall implementation. {[0125] “Distribution may be by, for example, physical media delivery, broadcast and/or telecommunication means, and in the form of ‘static’ files and/or streams of data.”}
The claimed step in this limitation is “providing… content”. The rest of the limitation is not given patentable weight because it does not affect the step of providing content. The rest of the limitation is directed towards the specific data which the content comprises, that the content has been processed, and an intended result regarding what the content enables.
Ginter does not teach, however Wikipedia teaches:
wherein the platform comprises a datastore connected via computer networks that stores:
the plurality of blocks in a set of hierarchical relationships; {page 1 “The Document Object Model (DOM) is a cross-platform and language-independent interface that treats an XML or HTML document as a tree structure wherein each node [block] is an object representing a part of the document.”
page 1 “The DOM represents a document with a logical tree.”
page 3 “the DOM supports navigation in any direction (e.g., parent and previous sibling)”
figure on page 1, shown below}
PNG
media_image1.png
456
472
media_image1.png
Greyscale
organizing the platform-based audio content in a plurality of blocks, wherein each block comprises a set of digital assets on a block level with a set of specified integrations and engagements; {page 1 “The Document Object Model (DOM) is a cross-platform and language-independent interface that treats an XML or HTML document as a tree structure wherein each node [block] is an object representing a part of the document.”}
with the plurality of blocks:
provide a set of block-level interactions, wherein the block-level interactions comprise event handlers attached to each block that respond to user interface events, {page 1 “Nodes can have event handlers attached to them.”}
nest one block into another,
visually represent the blocks in different parts of the block,
create relations between a set of different blocks, {page 3 “To render a document such as a HTML page, most web browsers use an internal model similar to the DOM. The nodes of every document are organized in a tree structure, called the DOM tree, with the topmost node named as "Document object". When an HTML page is rendered in browsers, the browser downloads the HTML into local memory and automatically parses it to display the page on screen.”
figure on page 1, shown above}
organizing the platform-based audio content in a plurality of blocks stored in a datastore, wherein: {page 1 “The Document Object Model (DOM) is a cross-platform and language-independent interface that treats an XML or HTML document as a tree structure wherein each node [block] is an object representing a part of the document.”}
each block comprises a set of digital assets on a block level with associated metadata including tags and access permissions;
This is not given patentable weight. It claims the content of data associated with the blocks which has no function relationship to the claimed method. The digital assets with associated metadata are not used in the method.
the blocks are arranged in a hierarchical tree structure with defined parent-child relationships; {page 1 “The DOM represents a document with a logical tree.”
page 3 “the DOM supports navigation in any direction (e.g., parent and previous sibling)”
figure on page 1, shown above}
the block level comprises a subset of seconds level enabling subset of seconds level data access;
“Subset of seconds level” is interpreted as audio data. This is not given patentable weight. It claims the content of data associated with the blocks which has no function relationship to the claimed method. The subset of seconds level is not used in the method. What it enables is an intended result.
each block includes event handlers for processing block-level interactions; {page 1 “Nodes can have event handlers attached to them.”}
Since Ginter teaches a user interface, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the interface of Wikipedia because it has the advantage of being “a cross-platform and language-independent interface”.
Regarding claim 2
Ginter teaches:
The computerized method of claim 1, wherein the multimedia media content platform allows a set of users to extract value out of content while protecting the set of creators' interests. {[0021] “VDE can be used to protect the rights of parties who create electronic content”}
This claim is interpreted as merely stating an intended result of the claimed invention, and is not given patentable weight.
Regarding claim 3
Ginter teaches:
The computerized method of claim 1, wherein each block is merged into a user's home webpage. {[2023] “In order to make use of the repository, the end user may operate application software. In this example, the end user may either make use of a standard application program (e.g. a World Wide Web browser such as Mosaic)”}
Regarding claim 5
The computerized method of claim 1, wherein with the plurality of blocks comprises optional comments, comments under a paywall and reply to threads for different blocks.
This limitation is not given patentable weight because it does not contain a step or modify any previously claimed step, and because the claimed comments are optional.
Regarding claim 7
The computerized method of claim 1, wherein the platform-based multimedia content comprises an audio performance-based content.
“Performance-based” is interpreted as referring to an intended result of the content and this limitation is therefore not given patentable weight.
Regarding claim 9
Ginter teaches:
The computerized method of claim 7, wherein the multimedia media content platform provides a set of frictionless micro transactions of the platform-based media content. {Abstract “The present invention provides systems and methods for secure transaction management and electronic rights protection.”}
The term “frictionless” is interpreted as merely describing an intended result and is not interpreted as limiting.
Regarding claim 10
The computerized method of claim 9, wherein the block level interactions can be implemented on any type of platform-based audio content.
This claim is interpreted as merely stating an intended result of the claimed invention, and is not given patentable weight.
Regarding claim 11
The computerized method of claim 10, wherein the multimedia media content platform comprises a provision for integration or custom implementation of blockchain powered platform that provides value for a time spent by a creator and a consumer for a process of consumption.
This limitation is not given patentable weight because it does not contain a step or modify any previously claimed step.
Regarding claim 13
The computerized method of claim 14, wherein the multimedia media content platform decentralized advertisement and multi content interaction and discovery system.
This claim contains no method step and is given no patentable weight.
Regarding claim 14
Wikipedia teaches:
The computerized method of claim 13, wherein the multimedia media content platform utilizes a relational hierarchy of the platform-based audio content. {page 1 “The DOM represents a document with a logical tree.”
page 3 “the DOM supports navigation in any direction (e.g., parent and previous sibling)”
figure on page 1, shown above}
The rationale for combining Wikipedia with Ginter is given above with respect to claim 1.
Regarding claim 15
The computerized method of claim 14, wherein the platform-based audio content mimics a mental model of the creator that provides a navigation model for a consumer to navigate and absorb the platform-based audio content.
This claim is interpreted as merely stating an intended result of the claimed invention, and is not given patentable weight.
Regarding claim 16
The computerized method of claim 15, wherein the complete audio uploaded can be put behind a paywall which the users can access by paying for the full content.
This claim is interpreted as non-limiting because it states an optional step. See MPEP 2111.04 I. “Claim scope is not limited by claim language that suggests or makes optional but does not require steps to be performed”.
Regarding claim 17
Ginter teaches:
The computerized method of claim 15, wherein the user selects a part of an audio file and puts the part of the audio behind the pay block. {[0200] “enable flexible metering of, or other collection of information related to, use of electronic content […] such flexibility of metering control mechanisms to accommodate a simultaneous, broad array of […] different increment units [part of an audio file] (bytes, documents, properties, paragraphs, images, etc.) and/or other organizations of such electronic content; […] Such metering is a flexible basis for ensuring payment for content royalties, licensing, purchasing, and/or advertising.”}
Regarding claim 18
Ginter teaches:
The computerized method of claim 15,
wherein the complete audio is uploaded put behind a paywall which the users can access by paying for the full content, and {[0391] “the ‘rules and controls’ shown in FIG. 2 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.”}
wherein the set of platform-based audio content provides a plurality of creator spaces where validation of the audio content is expected before purchasing the complete set of offerings like upcoming artists having their own labels.
This is interpreted as merely stating an intended result of the claimed invention, and is not given patentable weight.
Claims 6 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ginter et al. (US 20040054630 A1) in view of Wikipedia “Document Object Model” and further in view of Sharp (US 20160012465 A1).
Regarding claim 6
Ginter in view of Wikipedia does not teach, however Sharp teaches:
The computerized method of claim 1, wherein the paywall comprises a crypto-currency based paywall services. {[0078] “pay for it as if it were an item for purchase (e.g., by cash, credit, gift card, voucher, coupon, debit, mobile payment, cryptocurrency, etc.)”}
Sharp teaches accepting cryptocurrency as payment. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include cryptocurrency in the “multiple financial currencies” of Ginter to include additional currencies.
Regarding claim 12
Ginter in view of Wikipedia does not teach, however Sharp teaches:
The computerized method of claim 11, wherein the multimedia media content platform provides a community crypto-currency. {[0078] “pay for it as if it were an item for purchase (e.g., by cash, credit, gift card, voucher, coupon, debit, mobile payment, cryptocurrency, etc.)”}
Sharp teaches accepting cryptocurrency as payment. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include cryptocurrency in the “multiple financial currencies” of Ginter to include additional currencies.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ginter et al. (US 20040054630 A1) in view of Sharp (US 20160012465 A1).
Regarding claim 20
Ginter teaches:
The method of claim 19,
wherein the micro audio content comprises a subset of seconds of the audio content,
wherein the currency of the user's choice comprises a fiat currency, a […], and an ad block, {[0200] “enable flexible metering of, or other collection of information related to, use of electronic content […] such flexibility of metering control mechanisms to accommodate a simultaneous, broad array of […] different increment units [subset of seconds or pixels] (bytes, documents, properties, paragraphs, images, etc.) and/or other organizations of such electronic content; […] Such metering is a flexible basis for ensuring payment for content royalties, licensing, purchasing, and/or advertising [ad block].”
[0214] “metering, auditing, billing, and budgeting methods, the present invention is able to efficiently, concurrently support multiple financial currencies (e.g. dollars, marks, yen)”}
wherein the audio micro content monetization engine provides and manages a SaaS technology platform and ecosystem
This is interpreted as an intended result not given patentable weight.
that enables to build unique and novel monetization avenues and
This is interpreted as merely stating an intended result of the claimed invention, and is not given patentable weight.
create a sustainable creative business with complete freedom and control in any currency of their choice.
This is interpreted as merely stating an intended result of the claimed invention, and is not given patentable weight.
Ginter does not teach, however Sharp teaches:
wherein the currency of the user's choice comprises […], a crypto currency and […] {[0078] “pay for it as if it were an item for purchase (e.g., by cash, credit, gift card, voucher, coupon, debit, mobile payment, cryptocurrency, etc.)”}
Sharp teaches accepting cryptocurrency as payment. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include cryptocurrency in the “multiple financial currencies” of Ginter to give the user additional choices.
Response to Arguments
35 USC § 101
The 101 rejection is withdrawn. The claims are directed towards the abstract idea of managing interactions between content sellers and buyers. However, the details regarding the user interface (the blocks) do not represent an abstract idea and constitute significantly more than the platform for monetizing content.
35 USC § 102/103
Applicant argues the amendment to claim 19 overcomes the 102 rejection. Claim 19 now claims that the content monetization engine enables creator entity control over selection of audio portions, multiple unlock mechanisms, and granular segmentation. However, the newly added language is not written as a method step and is therefore not given patentable weight. Additionally, if the language were given patentable weight, it is similar to the previously presented language and is disclosed by Ginter.
Applicant further argues the amendment to claim 1 overcomes the 103 rejection. The amendments are numerous and have been addressed in the updated 103 rejection. It is noted that many of the amendments are duplicative of existing limitations or are not given patentable weight because they do not contain a method step or are directed towards the content of data.
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure and is listed in the enclosed PTO-892.
Curtis (US 20070060327 A1) teaches:
[0013] “In further embodiments, a computer application allows a user to compose and share custom games. The application comprises at least one game template that can be edited by the user, an interface which enables the user to provide instructions and edit the template, and an engine that generates the custom game. In alternate embodiments, the game template can include a plurality of game files which can be assembled. Further, the game files can be in a format suitable for publishing and can be prepared and published for use on a specific platform. In other embodiments, the game files can be stored in an encrypted format and the application can comprise an encryption engine to encrypt and decrypt the files. In additional embodiments, the games can be proprietary to the owner of the computer application who can charge the user a fee to use the application. Those skilled in the art will readily imagine the variety of monetization techniques available to the owner of this technology. Further, the interface can enable the user to author original content which can include music, text, video, animation, computer graphs and any audio. In another embodiment, the computer application can be implemented on a mobile computing device.”
MacDonald (US 20180330756 A1) teaches:
[0029] “FIG. 13, This invention creates a new market for movies, movie clips, music videos, television and sports videos, animations and other videos by allowing users to buy famous video clips or full movies, star in those movies with their friends and family, and then share or broadcast those videos through the application's distribution partners, or through the user's social media sites, subject to the license terms of the rights holders. This invention also creates a new market for video artists to come up with unique template ideas (i.e. mash ups) for users to act in. This invention also creates a new method of digital rights management FIG. 14 for the new composition and a new option to monetize those digital rights.”
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SCOTT MICHAEL DIROMA whose telephone number is (571)272-6430. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 12:30 pm - 8:30 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Patrick McAtee can be reached on (571) 272-7575. 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.
/S.M.D./Examiner, Art Unit 3698
/PATRICK MCATEE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3698