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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1 and 3-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1, 3-9 and 15-20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 3-7, 9-10, 13-16, 18 and 20 of copending Application No. 18/134,537 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims in the instant application are broader than the claims in the ‘537 application.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Referring to claims 1 and 3-9 of the instant application, see claims 1, 3-7, 9 and 20 of the ‘537 application.
Referring to claims 15-20 of the instant application, see claims 10, 13-16 and 18 of the ‘537 application.
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.
Claims 1 and 3-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Silberman-Sais et al. (U.S. Patent No. 2022/0159314, herein referred to as Sais) in view of Booz et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2017/0279774) in further view of Aviv et al. (U.S. Patent No. 11,481,815).
Referring to claim 1, Sais discloses selecting a channel display an active live stream session via an application on a user computing device (see Figure 4 and Paragraph 0040 for selecting a live stream channel from a trending list or home page of a website).
Sais also discloses viewing the selected live session (see Paragraph 0041 for viewing the live multicast session in step 404 of Figure 4).
Sais also discloses that based on currently viewing the active live stream session, casting one or more votes by interacting with the application (see Paragraph 0041 and step 404 for allowing users to vote while viewing the live multicast session), wherein the votes are cast by selection one of a plurality of actions provided by a host (see Paragraph 0041) and the casted votes are submitted to a database associated with the selected one of the plurality of actions, and based on the casted votes across the group of voters simultaneously viewing the selected active live stream session (The Examiner notes that Paragraphs 0023 and 0025 of Sais describe that the social networking system comprises multiple databases to store data from users of the social networking system, which includes the generation and viewing of the live multicast session and the voting event. Paragraphs 0040 and 0042 describe that the viewers cast votes during a voting event of the live multicast session generated by the social networking system. The results/votes are received until the end of the voting period and the result of the votes are calculated and then revealed to all users, therefore the votes are stored and processed in order to generate the result presented to all users. Further, Paragraph 0041 teaches that the voting event is monitored for the duration of the live multicast session, wherein the live multicast session is provided by the multicast client device and viewing simultaneously by the viewing users. Therefore, Sais teaches that “the casted votes are submitted to a database associated with the selected one of the plurality of actions, and based on the casted votes across a group of voters simultaneously viewing the selected active live stream session”), determining at least one of the plurality of actions to be performed by the host of the active live stream session (see Paragraphs 0041-0043).
Sais also discloses that upon completion of the determined at least one of the plurality of actions by the host via the active live stream session currently viewed by the group of voters, rewarding the users based on the result of the votes (see steps 412-416 in Figure 4 and Paragraphs 0042-0043).
Sais fails to teach that the one or more votes are placed in escrow pending the host performing the actions, wherein upon completion of the action, the one or more votes are released from escrow, converted to tokens and the tokens are provided to the host as a commission, wherein the payment to the host as commission is coupled with the associated payment to the cast votes.
Booz discloses voting by interacting with the application, submitting the vote to a remote computing network, saving the vote in a database (see Paragraph 0055 and Figure 5).
Booz also discloses that the casted one or more votes are placed in escrow pending the host performing the first of the plurality of actions (see Paragraph 0004 for the system executing multiple smart contracts), and upon completion of the determined at least one of the plurality of actions by the host via the active live stream session, the one or more votes case for the determined at least one of the plurality of actions that is completed configured to become payment to the host as a commission (see Paragraphs 0053 for setting up an escrow and Paragraph 0057 for executing a software module based on the instructions in the smart contract and once the execution has finished and the smart contract 112 has been completed the tokens in escrow are released to the party that provided the service, wherein Paragraph 0021 states that video feeds can be provided to a host device 102 and again note Paragraph 0004 for multiple smart contracts being executed by the system).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the live stream selection system, as taught by Sais, using the voting functionality, as taught by Booz, for the purpose of providing a decentralized public ledger for tracking transactions involving smart self-executing contracts in a publicly transparent publicly verifiable manner (see Paragraph 0002 of Booz).
Sais and Booz fails to teach that votes are cast with an associated payment and the payment to the host as commission is coupled with the associated payment to the cast votes.
Aviv discloses that votes are cast with an associated payment and that payment to a host as commission is coupled with the associated payment to the cast votes (see Column 6, Lines 1-22 for providing a livestream that allows users to vote on artwork for a cover of a music album and Column 13, Lines 20-42 for creating a DAO which allows users that purchases and holds tokens gains the ability to vote on important matters directed related to the DAO, therefore any votes by users are votes that are associated with users that purchase and hold the tokens associated with the DAO).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the live stream selection system, as taught by Sais and Booz, using the DAO voting and payment functionality, as taught by Aviv, for the purpose of using smart contracts in place of traditional corporate structures to coordinate the efforts and resources of many towards common aims (see Column 13, Lines 32-34 of Booz).
Referring to claim 3, Sais discloses that one or more votes are cast using a voting device (see client devices 210 in Figure 2).
Referring to claim 4, Booz discloses sending a message to the host (see Paragraphs 0055 and 0059 for communicating with the host device via peer-to-peer messaging).
Referring to claim 5, Booz discloses that the sending occurs with the casting of the one or more votes (see Paragraphs 0055 and 0059 for receiving a vote while communicating with the host device to determine if proposal 508).
Referring to claim 6, Sais discloses receiving a message from the host (see Paragraph 0038 for sending a message from the host to the user regarding if the host will wear a particular dress or eat a hot pepper instead of a salad).
Referring to claim 7, Sais discloses that the receiving occurs while the requested action is completed (see Paragraph 0038 for performing the action based on the decision of the host to perform the action or not).
Referring to claim 8, Sais discloses interacting with the host via a live chat (see Paragraph 0035).
Referring to claim 9, Sais discloses determining at least one of the plurality of requested actions to be performed by a host of the active live stream session is based on meta data in the votes cast (see Paragraph 0042-0043).
Referring to claim 10, Sais discloses that the databased is a cloud based micro-service (see Paragraph 0022).
Referring to claim 11, Sais discloses that the database is centralized (see Paragraphs 0022 and 0024).
Referring to claim 12, Sais discloses that the group consensus telemetry is configured to allow a group of voters to make a decision on an action (see Paragraphs 0026, 0035 and 0039).
Referring to claim 13, Sais discloses that the decision is transformed into reality based on the host and the devices (see Paragraph 0042).
Referring to claim 14, Sais discloses that the group of voters makes a decision based on a series of individual votes that are tallied to determine the determined action (see Paragraphs 0041-0042).
Referring to claims 15-20, see the rejection of claims 1 and 4-8, respectively. In regards to the additional architecture presented in independent claim 10, see Figures 1-2 and Paragraphs 0019-0035.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JASON P SALCE whose telephone number is (571)272-7301. The examiner can normally be reached 5:30am-10:00pm M-F (Flex Schedule).
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, Nathan Flynn can be reached at 571-272-1915. 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.
/Jason Salce/Senior Examiner, Art Unit 2421
Jason P Salce
Senior Examiner
Art Unit 2421
June 16, 2026
Prosecution Insights