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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 3/20/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments and amendments filed 3/30/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant has amended the independent claims to recite “based on the live session, receiving an indication of a plurality of actions available for voting, the plurality of actions being associated with a content of the live session and an input from a host of the live session”. The Examiner notes Sais discloses based on the live session (see step 402 in Figure 4 and Paragraph 0040), receiving an indication of a plurality of actions available for voting (see Paragraph 0041 for the multicasting user indicting the voting event, wherein Paragraph 0042 that multiple voting choices are presented to users viewing the live stream), the plurality of actions being associated with a content of the live session (see Paragraph 0041 for the voting being used by the multicasting user to decide which actions to take during the live stream, therefore altering the content of the live stream based on the voting result) and an input from a host of the live session (see Paragraph 0040 for the multicasting user starting the live stream and Paragraph 0041 for the multicasting user inputting the voting selections to present to the users).
Applicant has further amended the independent claims to recite “wherein the votes are cast by selecting at least one of a first of the plurality of actions and a second of the plurality of actions…”. As stated by the Examiner in the previous Office Action:
“Applicant has amended the claims to place two “or” statements into the claims. The Examiner notes that these “or” statements significantly reduces the scope of the claim. These claim amendments allows under a broadest reasonable interpretation to only consider the limitations before the “or” statement. For example, the claim recitation of “a first of a plurality of requested actions or a second of a plurality of requested actions” has been interpreted where all language past the “or” recitation is optional. The Examiner recommends amending the claim limitation from “or” to “and”, which will provide consistency to the last limitation that incorporates both the first and second plurality of requested actions. However, in order to expedite prosecution of the instant application, the Examiner has rejected the claims based on if the claims recited “and” instead of “or” (see the updated rejection below).”
While Applicant has changed the “or” limitations to “and”, the first “and” is now preceded by the limitation “at least one of”, which is the equivalent of reciting an “or” limitation, but in Markush form (see MPEP 2117). Therefore, the same limitation on the scope of the claims exist, where the only limitation that needs to be rejected in the claim is “at least one of a first of the plurality of actions”. The remaining limitations are rendered moot based on the nature of a Markush group only having to have one of the options needed to reject the claims. In order to expedite prosecution of the instant application, the Examiner will reject the remaining limitations (see the updated rejection below).
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 1-20 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).
Referring to claim 1, Sais discloses selecting a live stream channel displaying a live 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 channel to display the live session (see Figure 2, Paragraph 0028, Paragraph 0032 and Paragraphs 0040-0041 for viewing the live multicast session in step 404 of Figure 4 on a selected communication channel).
Sais also discloses based on the live session (see step 402 in Figure 4 and Paragraph 0040), receiving an indication of a plurality of actions available for voting (see Paragraph 0041 for the multicasting user indicting the voting event, wherein Paragraph 0042 that multiple voting choices are presented to users viewing the live stream), the plurality of actions being associated with a content of the live session (see Paragraph 0041 for the voting being used by the multicasting user to decide which actions to take during the live stream, therefore altering the content of the live stream based on the voting result) and an input from a host of the live session (see Paragraph 0040 for the multicasting user starting the live stream and Paragraph 0041 for the multicasting user inputting the voting selections to present to the users).
Sais also discloses that based on viewing the live session, casting one or more votes based on the received indication by interacting with the application (see Paragraph 0041 and step 404 for allowing users to vote while viewing the live multicast session, wherein the voting options are initiated by the multicasting user) and depositing one or more tokens for each of the cast one or more votes case (see Paragraph 0043), wherein the votes are cast by selecting at least one of a first of the plurality of actions and a second of the plurality of actions (see Paragraph 0041) and the cast votes are submitted to a remote server/computing network (see Paragraph 0042), the cast one or more votes indicating the selected at least one of the first of the plurality of actions and the second of the plurality of actions by the host of the live session (see Paragraphs 0041-0042), wherein upon completion of the first of the plurality of requested actions by the host via the live session, the host is rewarded (see Paragraphs 0042-0043 and the Examiner rebuttal above).
Sais fails to teach that the one or more votes are placed in escrow based on and pending the host performing the first of the plurality of actions, wherein upon completion of the actions, the one or more votes being released from escrow, converted to tokens and the tokens are provided to the host as a commission and the one or more votes cast for the second of the plurality of requested actions remains held in escrow.
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 one or more votes are placed in escrow based on and pending the host performing the first of the plurality of requested actions (see Paragraph 0004 for the system executing multiple smart contracts), and upon completion of the requested actions, the one or more votes being released from escrow, converted to tokens and the tokens are provided to the host as a commission and the one or more votes cast for the second of the plurality of requested actions remains held in escrow (see Paragraph 0052 for executing multiple smart contracts, wherein each smart contract releases tokens in escrow once each smart contract has been completed, therefore each smart contract corresponds to first, second and third requested actions and further note 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).
Referring to claim 2, Sais and Booz disclose all of the limitations of claim 1, but fail to teach that depositing one or more tokens comprises a transaction of depositing money to purchase the one or more tokens.
The Examiner takes Official Notice that tokens can be pre-purchased and then distributed after purchase.
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 token distribution system, as taught by Sais and Booz, using the token purchasing functionality, as taught by the Examiner statement of Official Notice, for the purpose of allowing a host to reward users of the system for participating in the live stream and voting system, which would incentivize users to continue to use the system.
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 performed (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 that the one or more votes include fractional votes (see Paragraphs 0041-0042 for receiving multiple votes from multiple users, therefore a single user’s vote is a fractional vote based on other users also casting votes, therefore if ten users vote, one user’s vote is 1/10 of the total votes casted).
Referring to claim 9, Sais discloses interacting with the host via a live chat (see Paragraph 0035).
Referring to claims 10-18, see the rejection of claims 1-9, respectively. In regards to the additional architecture presented in independent claim 10, see Figures 1-2 and Paragraphs 0019-0035.
Referring to claim 19, Sais discloses that the remote computing network is a server (see server 208 in Figure 2).
Referring to claim 20, Sais discloses that the host completes the first of the plurality of requested actions via the live session based on the group consensus of a plurality of the votes cast (see Paragraphs 0042-0043).
Conclusion
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
April 23, 2026
Prosecution Insights