DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on 7/21/2023 is being examined under the pre-AIA first inventor to invent provisions.
The following is a FINAL Office Action in response to Applicant’s amendments filed on 2/12//2026.
a. Claims 1-2, 7-8, 10, 15-16, 19 are amended
Overall, Claims 1-20 are pending and have been considered below.
Claim Objections
Claim 15 is objected to for reciting “wherein electronic device and the content sharing device are both user terminals in an electronic network.” It should read “wherein the electronic device and the content sharing device are both user terminals in an electronic network.”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 USC 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 USC 101 because the claimed invention is not directed to patent eligible subject matter. The claimed matter is directed to a judicial exception, i.e. an abstract idea, not integrated into a practical application, and without significantly more.
Per Step 1 of the multi-step eligibility analysis, claims 1-7 are directed to a computer-executable instructions stored on a non-transitory storage medium, claims 8-14 are directed to computer implemented method, and claims 15-20 are directed to a system.
Thus, on its face, each independent claim and the associated dependent claims are directed to a statutory category of invention.
[INDEPENDENT CLAIMS]
Per Step 2A.1. Independent claim 1 is rejected under 35 USC 101 because the independent claim is directed to an abstract idea, a judicial exception, without reciting additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The limitations of the independent claim 1 recite an abstract idea, shown in bold below:
[A] A computer-readable storage device having instructions stored thereon that, if executed by an electronic device, cause the electronic device to perform operations related to de-centralized distribution of content in a peer-to-peer network, wherein the electronic device comprise a peer of the peer-to-peer network
[B] following a content file being forwarded, from another peer of the peer-to-peer network, to the peer, generating at least one digital media identifier, but only in a case that the peer-forwarded content file has not been presented by said peer;
[C] detecting initiation of a playback of the peer-forwarded content file, by the peer
[D] only in the case that the peer-forwarded content file not been presented by said peer prior to said detected playback, triggering an update of a count by sending the at least one digital media identifier to a remote network device,
[E] wherein the triggering the update does not occur in a case that the presentation comprises a re-presentation by the same peer and wherein the remote network device is not the other peer.
Independent claim 1 recites: generating a content file identifier (limitation B), detecting an initiation of play-back ([C]), updating the count of non-presented content files (limitation D), which, based on the claim language and in view of the application specification, represents a process aimed at: “keeping track of previously non-presented (e.g. presented for the first time) content files”.
This is a combination that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, a reasonable performance of limitations expressing observation, evaluation in the human mind. Nothing in the claim elements precludes the steps from being practically performed in the human mind. For example, the steps generating an identifier and conditionally updating the presentation counts, as drafted in the context of this claim, encompasses the user manually or mentally naming the content file and counting its first presentation. These limitations fall under the Mental Processes, i.e., Concepts Performed in the Human Mind grouping of abstract ideas (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)).
Accordingly, it is concluded that independent claim 1 recites an abstract idea that corresponds to a judicial exception.
[INDEPENDENT CLAIMS – Additional Elements]
Per Step 2A.2. The identified abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements in the independent claims only amount to instructions to apply the judicial exception to a computer, or are a general link to a technological environment (see MPEP 2106.05(f); MPEP 2106.05(h)).
For example, the added elements “electronic device”, “peer device,” and “peer-to-peer network” recite computing elements at a high level of generality, generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment (see MPEP 2106.05(h)), or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(f)). Further, the qualifiers “wherein the triggering the update does not occur in a case that the content file has been presented using the electronic device.” as applied to the updating the count, are nothing more than (a) descriptive limitations of claim elements, such as describing the nature, structure and/or content of other claim elements, or (b) general links to the computing environment, which amount to instructions to “apply it,” or equivalent (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
These qualifiers of the independent claims do not preclude from carrying out the identified abstract idea “keeping track of previously non-presented (e.g. presented for the first time) content files”, and do not serve to integrate the identified abstract idea into a practical application.
Therefore, the additional claim elements of independent claim 1 do not integrate the identified abstract idea into a practical application and the claims remain a judicial exception.
Per Step 2B. Independent claim 1 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when the independent claim is reevaluated as a whole, as an ordered combination under the considerations of Step 2B, the outcome is the same like under Step 2A.2.
Overall, it is concluded that independent claim 1 is deemed ineligible.
Independent claim 8 is rejected under 35 USC 101 because the independent claim is directed to an abstract idea, a judicial exception, without reciting additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The limitations of the independent claim 8 recite an abstract idea, shown in bold below:
[A] A method comprising: the method utilizing a content sharing device which is configured to provide a forwardable copy of content to a user terminal,
[B] wherein the forwardable copy comprises a content file;
[C] triggering an update of a count by sending the digital content identifier to a network device;
[D] wherein said triggering is responsive to initiating presentation of the content file, and is conditional, in which the triggering the update occurs only if the content file has not been played, on the electronic device, prior to the initiating the presentation of the content file on an electronic device,
[E] wherein the triggering the update does not occur in a case that the content filed has been played, on the electronic device, at least once prior to the initiating the presentation of the content file.
Independent claim 8 recites: counting the presented advertainments ([C]); and conditioning the counting on the history of presenting of the respective advertisement ([D]), which, based on the claim language and in view of the application disclosure, represents a process aimed at: “keeping track of previously non-presented (e.g. presented for the first time) content files”.
This is a combination that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, a reasonable performance of limitations expressing observation, evaluation in the human mind. Nothing in the claim elements precludes the steps from being practically performed in the human mind. For example, the step of conditionally updating the presentation counts as drafted in the context of this claim, encompasses the user manually or mentally updating the presentation counts based on certain conditions. These limitations fall under the Mental Processes, i.e., Concepts Performed in the Human Mind grouping of abstract ideas (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)).
Accordingly, it is concluded that independent claim 8 recites an abstract idea that corresponds to a judicial exception.
[INDEPENDENT CLAIMS – Additional Elements]
Per Step 2A.2. The identified abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements in the independent claims only amount to instructions to apply the judicial exception to a computer, or are a general link to a technological environment (see MPEP 2106.05(f); MPEP 2106.05(h)).
For example, the qualifiers “wherein the forwardable copy comprises a content file “, “wherein said triggering is responsive to initiating presentation of the content file, and is conditional on history of use of the electronic device, in which the triggering the update occurs only if the content file has not been played, using the electronic device” as applied to presenting the content file, are nothing more than (a) descriptive limitations of claim elements, such as describing the nature, structure and/or content of other claim elements, or (b) general links to the computing environment, which amount to instructions to “apply it,” or equivalent (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
These qualifiers of the independent claims do not preclude from carrying out the identified abstract idea “keeping track of previously non-presented (e.g. presented for the first time) content files”, and do not serve to integrate the identified abstract idea into a practical application.
The additional steps in the independent claims, shown not bolded above, recite: using the electronic device prior to the presentation of the content file. When considered individually, they amount to nothing more than receiving data, processing data, storing results or transmitting data that serves merely to implement the abstract idea using computing components for performing computer functions (corresponding to the words “apply it” or an equivalent), or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform the identified abstract idea. Thus, it is concluded that these claim elements do not integrate the identified abstract idea (“keeping track of previously non-presented (e.g. presented for the first time) content files”) into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2)).
Therefore, the additional claim elements of independent claim 8 do not integrate the identified abstract idea into a practical application and the claims remain a judicial exception.
Per Step 2B. Independent claim 8 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when the independent claim is reevaluated as a whole, as an ordered combination under the considerations of Step 2B, the outcome is the same like under Step 2A.2.
Overall, it is concluded that independent claim 8 is deemed ineligible.
Independent claim 15 is rejected under 35 USC 101 because the independent claim is directed to an abstract idea, a judicial exception, without reciting additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The limitations of the independent claim 15 recite an abstract idea, shown in bold below:
[A] A system comprising: an electronic device including a processor and a memory; a content sharing device communicatively connected to the electronic device by a network,
[B] wherein the content sharing device is configured to provide a forwardable copy of content to the electronic device, wherein the content comprises a content file having content to be associated with at least one advertisement; and another electronic device communicatively connected to the electronic device by the network;
[C] wherein the memory includes instructions stored thereon that, if executed by the processor, cause the electronic device to perform operations
[D] sending a request to the content sharing device;
[E] in response to the request, receiving from the content sharing device, the content file,
[F] wherein electronic device and the content sharing device are both user terminals in an electronic network;
[G] upon playing particular media, determining whether the particular media has been presented at the electronic device before;
[H] based on determining the particular media has not been presented at the electronic device before, triggering an update of a count maintained by the other electronic device by sending the other electronic device at least one digital media identifier associated with the content file,
[I] wherein the other electronic device is configured to track at least one metric about the particular media based at least in part on the count in which the triggering the update occurs only if the particular media has not been played, on the electronic device, prior to the initiating the presentation.
Independent claim 15 recites: requesting and receiving content ([D], [E]); determining if the content has been previously presented ([G]); and conditionally updating the count with the presentations of the content ([H]), which, based on the claim language and in view of the application disclosure, represents a process aimed at: “keeping track of previously non-presented (e.g. presented for the first time) content files”.
This is a combination that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, a reasonable performance of limitations expressing observation, evaluation in the human mind. Nothing in the claim elements precludes the steps from being practically performed in the human mind. For example, the step requesting and receiving content, as well as conditionally updating the presentation counts, as drafted in the context of this claim, encompasses the user manually or mentally requesting/obtaining content followed by continually updating the presentation counts of the respective content. These limitations fall under the Mental Processes, i.e., Concepts Performed in the Human Mind grouping of abstract ideas (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)).
Accordingly, it is concluded that independent claim 15 recites an abstract idea that corresponds to a judicial exception.
[INDEPENDENT CLAIMS – Additional Elements]
Per Step 2A.2. The identified abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements in the independent claims only amount to instructions to apply the judicial exception to a computer, or are a general link to a technological environment (see MPEP 2106.05(f); MPEP 2106.05(h)).
For example, the added elements “processor,” “memory,” “electronic device” and “network” recite computing elements at a high level of generality, generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment (see MPEP 2106.05(h)), or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(f)). Further, the qualifiers “wherein the content sharing device is configured to provide a forwardable copy of content to the electronic device, wherein the content comprises a content file having content to be associated with at least one advertisement”, “wherein the memory includes instructions stored thereon that, if executed by the processor, cause the electronic device to perform operations”, “wherein electronic device and the content sharing device are both user devices in an electronic network” as applied to the electronic device, are nothing more than (a) descriptive limitations of claim elements, such as describing the nature, structure and/or content of other claim elements, or (b) general links to the computing environment, which amount to instructions to “apply it,” or equivalent (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
These qualifiers of the independent claims do not preclude from carrying out the identified abstract idea “keeping track of previously non-presented (e.g. presented for the first time) content files”, and do not serve to integrate the identified abstract idea into a practical application.
Therefore, the additional claim elements of independent claim 15 do not integrate the identified abstract idea into a practical application and the claim remain a judicial exception.
Per Step 2B. Independent claim 15 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when the independent claim is reevaluated as a whole, as an ordered combination under the considerations of Step 2B, the outcome is the same like under Step 2A.2.
Overall, it is concluded that independent claim 15 is deemed ineligible.
[DEPENDENT CLAIMS]
Dependent claim 2, 9 recite:
generating is performed following the peer obtaining the content file from the other peer via the peer-to-peer network.
When considered individually, these added claim elements further elaborate on the abstract idea identified in the independent claims, because the dependent claim continues to recite the identified abstract idea: “keeping track of previously non-presented (e.g. presented for the first time) content files”. The elements in this dependent claim are comparable to “receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather or provide data”, which has been recognized by a controlling court as "well-understood, routine and conventional computing functions" when claimed generically as they are in these dependent claims. Thus, it is concluded that these claim elements do not integrate the identified abstract idea (“keeping track of previously non-presented (e.g. presented for the first time) content files”) into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(d) II)).
The dependent claim elements have the same relationship to the underlying abstract idea (“keeping track of previously non-presented (e.g. presented for the first time) content files”) as outlined in the independent claims analysis above. Thus, it is readily apparent that the dependent claim elements are not directed to any specific improvements of the independent claims and do not practically or significantly alter how the identified abstract idea would be performed. When considered as a whole, as an ordered combination, the dependent claim further elaborates on the previously identified abstract idea (“keeping track of previously non-presented (e.g. presented for the first time) content files”).
Therefore, dependent claims 2, 9 are deemed ineligible.
Dependent claims 4, 11, 18 recite:
sending, to the network device, account information associated with the owner of the electronic device.
When considered individually, these added claim elements further elaborate on the abstract idea identified in the independent claims, because the dependent claim continues to recite the identified abstract idea: “keeping track of previously non-presented (e.g. presented for the first time) content files”. The elements in this dependent claim are comparable to “receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather or provide data”, which has been recognized by a controlling court as "well-understood, routine and conventional computing functions" when claimed generically as they are in these dependent claims. Thus, it is concluded that these claim elements do not integrate the identified abstract idea (“keeping track of previously non-presented (e.g. presented for the first time) content files”) into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(d) II)).
The dependent claim elements have the same relationship to the underlying abstract idea (“keeping track of previously non-presented (e.g. presented for the first time) content files”) as outlined in the independent claims analysis above. Thus, it is readily apparent that the dependent claim elements are not directed to any specific improvements of the independent claims and do not practically or significantly alter how the identified abstract idea would be performed. When considered as a whole, as an ordered combination, the dependent claim further elaborates on the previously identified abstract idea (“keeping track of previously non-presented (e.g. presented for the first time) content files”).
Therefore, dependent claims 4, 11, 18 are deemed ineligible.
Dependent claims 5-6, 12-13, 19 recite:
sending, to the network device, a location of the electronic device at the time the at least one advertisement was presented using the electronic device.
sending, to the network device, electronic device information indicating a type of user device.
When considered individually, these added claim elements further elaborate on the abstract idea identified in the independent claims, because the dependent claim continues to recite the identified abstract idea: “keeping track of previously non-presented (e.g. presented for the first time) content files”. The elements in this dependent claim are comparable to “receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather or provide data”, which has been recognized by a controlling court as "well-understood, routine and conventional computing functions" when claimed generically as they are in these dependent claims. Thus, it is concluded that these claim elements do not integrate the identified abstract idea (“keeping track of previously non-presented (e.g. presented for the first time) content files”) into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(d) II)).
The dependent claim elements have the same relationship to the underlying abstract idea (“keeping track of previously non-presented (e.g. presented for the first time) content files”) as outlined in the independent claims analysis above. Thus, it is readily apparent that the dependent claim elements are not directed to any specific improvements of the independent claims and do not practically or significantly alter how the identified abstract idea would be performed. When considered as a whole, as an ordered combination, the dependent claim further elaborates on the previously identified abstract idea (“keeping track of previously non-presented (e.g. presented for the first time) content files”).
Therefore, dependent claims 5-6, 12-13, 19 are deemed ineligible.
Dependent claim 7 recites:
checking, at the electronic device, whether a playback of the content file is an initial playback;
generating the at least one digital content identifier based on a result of the checking.
When considered individually, these added claim elements further elaborate on the abstract idea identified in the independent claims, because the dependent claim continues to recite the identified abstract idea: “keeping track of previously non-presented (e.g. presented for the first time) content files”. The elements in this dependent claim are comparable to receiving/transmitting data, processing data, storing results or transmitting data that serves merely to implement the abstract idea using computing components for performing computer functions (corresponding to the words “apply it” or an equivalent), or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform the identified abstract idea. Thus, it is concluded that these claim elements do not integrate the identified abstract idea (“keeping track of previously non-presented (e.g. presented for the first time) content files”) into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2)).
The dependent claim elements have the same relationship to the underlying abstract idea (“keeping track of previously non-presented (e.g. presented for the first time) content files”) as outlined in the independent claims analysis above. Thus, it is readily apparent that the dependent claim elements are not directed to any specific improvements of the independent claims and do not practically or significantly alter how the identified abstract idea would be performed. When considered as a whole, as an ordered combination, the dependent claim further elaborates on the previously identified abstract idea (“keeping track of previously non-presented (e.g. presented for the first time) content files”).
Therefore, dependent claim 7 is deemed ineligible.
Dependent claim 14 recites:
retaining information tracking the history of use.
When considered individually, these added claim elements further elaborate on the abstract idea identified in the independent claims, because the dependent claim continues to recite the identified abstract idea: “keeping track of previously non-presented (e.g. presented for the first time) content files”. The elements in this dependent claim are comparable to “storing and retrieving information in/from memory”, which has been recognized by a controlling court as "well-understood, routine and conventional computing functions" when claimed generically as they are in these dependent claims. Thus, it is concluded that these claim elements do not integrate the identified abstract idea (“keeping track of previously non-presented (e.g. presented for the first time) content files”) into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(d) II)).
The dependent claim elements have the same relationship to the underlying abstract idea (“keeping track of previously non-presented (e.g. presented for the first time) content files”) as outlined in the independent claims analysis above. Thus, it is readily apparent that the dependent claim elements are not directed to any specific improvements of the independent claims and do not practically or significantly alter how the identified abstract idea would be performed. When considered as a whole, as an ordered combination, the dependent claim further elaborates on the previously identified abstract idea (“keeping track of previously non-presented (e.g. presented for the first time) content files”).
Therefore, dependent claim 14 is deemed ineligible.
Dependent claims 3, 10, 16-17 20 recite:
wherein the network device comprises a non-peer.
wherein the triggering is following the electronic device obtaining a content file from a different peer of the peer-to-peer network.
wherein the content sharing device comprises a peer-to-peer network.
wherein the other electronic device comprises a server.
wherein the at least one identifier is sent with account information associated with the owner of the electronic device.
wherein the at least one identifier is sent with 1) a location of the electronic device at the time of said initiating the presentation, or 2) electronic device information indicating a type of user device of the electronic device.
wherein the particular media comprises content of the at least one advertisement.
These further elements in the dependent claims do not perform any claimed method steps. They describe the nature, structure and/or content of other claim elements – the network device; the triggering; the content; the identifier – and as such, cannot change the nature of the identified abstract idea (“keeping track of previously non-presented (e.g. presented for the first time) content files”), from a judicial exception into eligible subject matter, because they do not represent significantly more (see MPEP 2106.07). The nature, form or structure of the other claim elements themselves do not practically or significantly alter how the identified abstract idea would be performed and do not provide more than a general link to a technological environment.
Therefore, dependent claims 3, 10, 16-20 are deemed ineligible.
When the dependent claims are considered as a whole, as an ordered combination, the claim elements noted above appear to merely apply the abstract concept to a technical environment in a very general sense. The most significant elements, which form the abstract concept, are set forth in the independent claims. The fact that the computing devices and the dependent claims are facilitating the abstract concept is not enough to confer statutory subject matter eligibility, since their individual and combined significance do not transform the identified abstract concept at the core of the claimed invention into eligible subject matter. Therefore, it is concluded that the dependent claims of the instant application, considered individually, or as a as a whole, as an ordered combination, do not amount to significantly more (see MPEP 2106.07(a)II).
In sum, Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 USC 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a)
Written Description (New Matter)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
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.
The following is a quotation of the relevant portion of 35 U.S.C. §132(a):
No amendment shall introduce new matter into the disclosure of the invention.
Claims 8-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a), for failing to comply with the written description requirement. MPEP 2163.06 stipulates – If new matter is added to the claims, the examiner should reject the claims under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) – written description requirement. In re Rasmussen, 650 F.2d 1212, 211 USPQ 323 (CCPA 1981).
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claims 8, 15 have been amended by Applicant to include the limitation “forwardable copy.” The limitation has no support in the specification, drawings or initial set of claims. ss
As per claim 8, Applicant has not pointed out where the amended claim is supported, nor does there appear to be a written description of the claim limitation “forwardable copy.”
The remainder of the claims are rejected by virtue of dependency. The reference is provided for the purpose of compact prosecution.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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 1-14 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 regards as the invention.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) because it is a negative limitation (i.e., wherein the network device is not the other peer”) that defines a claim by what it’s not, thus not “particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention” (see MPEP 2173.05(i)).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) for being syntactically incorrect. The claim recites “wherein the said triggering is responsive for initiating presentation of the content file, and is conditional [??], in which …”. It is not disclosed on what the triggering is conditioned on.
The remainder of the claims are rejected by virtue of dependency. The reference is provided for the purpose of compact prosecution.
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 difference 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 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(a) are summarized as follows:
i. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
ii. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
iii. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
iv. 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 Schleicher et al (US 2002/0138744), in view of Kochi (US 2003/0158779).
Regarding Claim 1: Schleicher discloses: A computer-readable storage device having instructions stored thereon that, if executed by an electronic device, cause the electronic device to perform operations related to de-centralized distribution of content in a peer-to-peer network, wherein the electronic device comprise a peer of a peer-to-peer network, {see at least [abstract] file transferred from node to node (reads on decentralized)} the operations comprising:
following a content file being forwarded, from another peer of the peer-to-peer network, to the peer, generating at least one digital media identifier, … {see at least [abstract] file transferred from node to node (reads on form content received from another peer); nodes generate a fingerprint (reads on identifier)}
Schleicher does not disclose, however, Kochi discloses:
… but only in a case that the peer-forwarded content file has not been presented by said peer; {see at least fig11, rcS301, rcS308, [0096]-[0097], [0099]-[0101] count of unread advertisement (based on the BRI requirement (MPEP 2111), reads on content files not previously presented}
detecting initiation of a playback of the peer-forwarded content file, by the peer, and in
response thereto:
only in the case that the peer-forwarded content file not been presented by said peer prior to said detected playback, triggering an update of a count by sending the at least one digital media identifier to a remote network device {see at least fig11, rcS301, rcS308, [0096]-[0097], [0099]-[0101] unread count 122q< (based on the BRI requirement (MPEP 2111), reads on number of reads on content files not previously presented}
wherein the triggering the update does not occur in a case that the presentation comprises a re-presentation by the same peer and wherein the remote network device is not the other peer. {see at least fig9, rcS111, rcS112, [0086]-[0088] advertisement is distributed (based on BRI (MPEP 2111), reads on presentation for the fits time, i.e., re-presentation); [0093] repeats the process S110 through S116 (based on the BRI (MPEP 2111), reads that the first pass is the first time the presentation occurs)}
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to modify Schleicher to include the elements of Kochi. One would have been motivated to do so, in order to track only first time uses of the content. In the instant case, Schleicher evidently discloses a peer-to-peer network for exchanging content files. Kochi is merely relied upon to illustrate the functionality of considering only the first time use of content in the same or similar context. Since both a peer-to-peer network for exchanging content files, as well as considering only the first time use of content are implemented through well-known computer technologies in the same or similar context, combining their features as outlined above using such well-known computer technologies (i.e., conventional software/hardware configurations), would be reasonable, according to one of ordinary skill in the art. Moreover, since the elements disclosed by Schleicher, as well as Kochi would function in the same manner in combination as they do in their separate embodiments, it would be reasonable to conclude that their resulting combination would be predictable. Accordingly, the claimed subject matter is obvious over Schleicher / Kochi.
Regarding Claims 2, 9: Schleicher, Kochi discloses the limitations of Claims 1, 8. Schleicher further discloses:
wherein the generating is performed following the peer obtaining the content file from the other peer via the peer-to-peer network. {see at least fig1, rc16, [0021] receiving content from node (i.e, computer)}
Regarding Claims 3, 10, 17: Schleicher, Kochi discloses the limitations of Claims 1, 9, 15. Schleicher further discloses:
wherein the network device comprises a non-peer. {see at least fig1A, rc12, [0020] server node (reads on non-peer)}
Regarding Claims 4, 11, 18: Schleicher, Kochi discloses the limitations of Claims 1, 8, 15. Schleicher further discloses: wherein the operations further comprise
sending, to the network device, account information associated with the owner of the electronic device. {see at least [0025] account information for the user, user ID; [0042] owner}
Regarding Claims 5-6, 12-13, 19: Schleicher, Kochi discloses the limitations of Claims 1, 8, 15. Schleicher further discloses: wherein the at least one identifier is sent with
1) a location of the electronic device at the time of said initiating the presentation, {see at least [0040] geographic location; [0045] location of the client node}
2) electronic device information indicating a type of user device of the electronic device. {see at least [0011] computer as client node (reads on type of electronic device)}
Regarding Claim 7: Schleicher, Kochi discloses the limitations of Claim 1. Schleicher further discloses:
generating the at least one digital content identifier … {see at least [abstract] advertisement (reads on digital content) promoting system; node generates a fingerprint (reads on digital content identifier)}
Schleicher does not disclose, however, Kochi discloses:
checking, at the electronic device, whether a playback of the content file is an initial playback; {see at least fig11, rcS307, [0099]-[0101] unread count >restricted value? (based on the BRI requirement (MPEP 2111), reads on location of the playback content}
… based on a result of the checking. {see at least fig11, rcS308, [0099]-[0101] “Yes”(based on the BRI requirement (MPEP 2111), reads on result of a checking}
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to modify Schleicher, Kochi to include additional elements of Kochi. One would have been motivated to do so, in order to track only first time uses of the content. In the instant case, Schleicher, Kochi evidently discloses only first-time use of content in a peer-to-peer network. Kochi is merely relied upon to illustrate the additional functionality of conditionally generating a content identifier in the same or similar context. Since the subject matter is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element would have performed the same function it performed separately, one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Regarding Claim 8: Schleicher discloses: A method comprising:
the method utilizing a content sharing device which is configured to provide forwardable copy of content to a user terminal, wherein the forwardable copy comprises a content file; {see at least [abstract] electronically delivering files over a public network (reads on content sharing)}
… on the electronic device, at least once prior to the initiating the presentation of the content file. {see at least [0020] receiving content (based on BRI (MPEP 2111), reads on using the device to receive the content, before presenting the content)}
Schleicher does not disclose, however, Kochi discloses:
triggering an update of a count by sending a digital content identifier to a network device; {see at least fig11, rcS301, rcS308, [0096]-[0097], [0099]-[0101] unread count 122q< (based on the BRI requirement (MPEP 2111), reads on number of reads on content files not previously presented}
wherein said triggering is responsive to initiating presentation of the content file, and is conditional, in which the triggering the update occurs only if the content file has not been played, on the electronic device, prior to the initiating the presentation of the content file on the electronic device {see at least fig11, rcS301, rcS308, [0096]-[0097], [0099]-[0101] file with not presented/played content (based on the BRI requirement (MPEP 2111), reads on presenting from the non-previously-presented content file)}
wherein the triggering the update does not occur in a case that the content filed has been played, … {see at least fig11, rcS301, rcS308, [0096]-[0097], [0099]-[0101] file with not presented/played content (based on the BRI requirement (MPEP 2111), reads on presenting from the non-previously-presented content file)}
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to modify Schleicher to include the elements of Kochi. One would have been motivated to do so, in order to make sure that content that has been received prior is presented. In the instant case, Schleicher evidently discloses using an electronic device before presenting content an electronic device. Kochi is merely relied upon to illustrate the functionality of considering only the first time use of content in the same or similar context. Since both using an electronic device before presenting content, as well as considering only the first time use of content are implemented through well-known computer technologies in the same or similar context, combining their features as outlined above using such well-known computer technologies (i.e., conventional software/hardware configurations), would be reasonable, according to one of ordinary skill in the art. Moreover, since the elements disclosed by Schleicher, as well as Kochi would function in the same manner in combination as they do in their separate embodiments, it would be reasonable to conclude that their resulting combination would be predictable. Accordingly, the claimed subject matter is obvious over Schleicher / Kochi.
Regarding Claim 14: Schleicher, Kochi discloses the limitations of Claim 8. Kochi further discloses:
retaining information tracking the history of use. {see at least [0005] storing information indicating user’s response}
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to modify Schleicher, Kochi to include additional elements of Kochi. One would have been motivated to do so, in order to track the use. In the instant case, Schleicher, Kochi evidently discloses only first-time use of content in a peer-to-peer network. Kochi is merely relied upon to illustrate the additional functionality of tracking the use in the same or similar context. Since the subject matter is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element would have performed the same function it performed separately, one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Regarding Claim 15: Schleicher discloses: A system comprising: an electronic device including a processor and a memory; a content sharing device communicatively connected to the electronic device by a network, wherein the content sharing device is configured to provide a forwardable copy of content to the electronic device, … {see at least [abstract] electronically delivering files over a public network (reads on content sharing)}; and another electronic device communicatively connected to the electronic device by the network; wherein the memory includes instructions stored thereon that, if executed by the processor, cause the electronic device to perform operations {see at least [abstract] file transferred from node to node} comprising:
sending a request to the content sharing device; {see at least [0035] user requested a download}
in response to the request,
receiving from the content sharing device, the content file, {see at least [0044] download for the requested file}
wherein electronic device and the content sharing device are both user terminals in an electronic network; {see at least fig1A, rc16, [0019] peer in peer-to-peer network}
using the electronic device, prior to the initiating the presentation. (based on BRI (MPEP 2111), reads on using the device to receive the content, before presenting the content)}
Schleicher does not disclose, however, Kochi discloses:
… wherein the content comprises a content file having content to be associated with at least one advertisement {see at least [abstract] distributing advertisments}
upon playing particular media, determining whether the particular media has been presented at the electronic device before; {see at least fig11, rcS301, rcS308, [0096]-[0097], [0099]-[0101] unread count 122q< (based on the BRI requirement (MPEP 2111), reads on number of reads on content files not previously presented}
based on determining the particular media has not been presented at the electronic device before, {see at least fig11, rcS301, rcS308, [0096]-[0097], [0099]-[0101] unread count 122q< (based on the BRI requirement (MPEP 2111), reads on number of reads on content files not previously presented }
triggering an update of a count maintained by the other electronic device by sending the other electronic device at least one digital media identifier associated with the content file, {see at least fig11, rcS301, rcS308, [0096]-[0097], [0099]-[0101] unread count 122q< (based on the BRI requirement (MPEP 2111), reads on number of reads on content files not previously presented}
wherein the other electronic device is configured to
track at least one metric about the particular media based at least in part on the count in which the triggering the update occurs only if the particular media has not been played, {see at least fig11, rcS301, rcS308, [0096]-[0097], [0099]-[0101] unread count 122q< (based on the BRI requirement (MPEP 2111), reads on number of reads on content files not previously presented}
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to modify Schleicher to include the elements of Kochi. One would have been motivated to do so, in order to make sure the content data base is up to date. In the instant case, Schleicher evidently discloses requesting and receiving content. Kochi is merely relied upon to illustrate the functionality of considering only the first time use of content in the same or similar context. Since both requesting and receiving content, as well as considering only the first time use of content are implemented through well-known computer technologies in the same or similar context, combining their features as outlined above using such well-known computer technologies (i.e., conventional software/hardware configurations), would be reasonable, according to one of ordinary skill in the art. Moreover, since the elements disclosed by Schleicher, as well as Kochi would function in the same manner in combination as they do in their separate embodiments, it would be reasonable to conclude that their resulting combination would be predictable. Accordingly, the claimed subject matter is obvious over Schleicher / Kochi.
Regarding Claim 16: Schleicher, Kochi discloses the limitations of Claim 15. Schleicher further discloses:
wherein the content sharing device comprises a peer of the peer-to-peer network. {see at least [abstract] peer-to-peer file sharing (reads on peer-to-peer network)}
Regarding Claim 20: Schleicher, Kochi discloses the limitations of Claim 15. Kochi further discloses:
wherein the particular media comprises content of the at least one advertisement. {see at least [abstract] advertisement promoting system}
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to modify Schleicher, Kochi to include additional elements of Kochi. One would have been motivated to do so, in order to track advertisements as well. In the instant case, Schleicher, Kochi evidently discloses only first-time use of content in a peer-to-peer network. Kochi is merely relied upon to illustrate the additional functionality of advertisement as the content in the same or similar context. Since the subject matter is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element would have performed the same function it performed separately, one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon which, however, is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US 20050198661 A1 Collins, Andrew et al. Display - A display arrangement comprises an image display device having two or more sets of images for display; a camera directed towards positions adopted by users viewing the display; a face detector for detecting human faces in images captured by the camera, the face detector being arranged to detect faces in at least two face categories; and means, responsive to the a frequency of detection of categories of faces by the face detector at one or more different periods, for selecting a set of images to be displayed on the image display device at that time of day.
US 20050041958 A1 Kim, Chul-min Image recording and reproducing apparatus capable of re-compressing and re-recording recorded data and a method thereof - An image recording and reproducing apparatus for re-compressing and re-recording once stored data, and a method thereof. The image recording and reproducing apparatus comprises an encoder for compressing input digital image data by a first compression rate, thereby generating and outputting first compressed data, a storage part for storing the first compressed data, a decoder for expanding the first compressed data of the storage part to restore a digital image data, and outputting the digital image data, and a controller for controlling the decoder such that the digital image data output from the decoder is transmitted to the encoder, compressed by the encoder by a second compression rate into second compressed data, and stored to the storage part.
US 20060235756 A1 Pellegrino; Thomas Patrick - This online file streaming and advertising business method allows for the creation of an internet community based around a virtual "web radio" wherein any song, movie, TV show, fashion video or sound clip, etc. can be made individually available for free. Any and all media companies may provide exclusive media content for the virtual "web radio" and its associated web site. When a file is streamed to an individual's computer, the file cannot be saved to the computer or copied by the individual in any way. The files are available for free to the individual on the virtual "web radio" because they are pre-paid for by advertisers who pay to have their advertisement put at the beginning of the file being streamed. Similar to television and radio, this business method improvement comprises offering content to the public for free as a platform for advertising. Yet this business method is unlike radio or TV however, because the individual is literally forced to view or hear the advertisement: they have the ability to pause the transfer, but cannot fast-forward or skip past the advertisement. This method of appending advertisements to the beginning of digital streams constitutes an improvement on existing business methods for combining advertising with such content as television programs, web pages, films, or radio. This business method is an improvement on the effectiveness of advertising.
US 20060242155 A1 Moore; George M. et al. Systems and methods for providing distributed, decentralized data storage and retrieval - Systems and methods for distributed, decentralized storage and retrieval of data in an extensible SOAP environment are disclosed. Such systems and methods decentralize not only the bandwidth required for data storage and retrieval, but also the computational requirements. Accordingly, such systems and methods alleviate the need for one node to do all the storage and retrieval processing, and no single node is required to send or receive all the data.
US 20060294258 A1 Powers-Boyle; Elizabeth I. et al. Advertisement refresh rules for network applications - Advertisements are refreshed in an interface based on one or more parameters provided over a network. The parameters can be retrieved from a web service and implemented at a client device. Advertisement refreshing is performed independently of web page content loading. The parameters may include a time period and user action count and be configured differently for different markets, geographical areas, other customer groups, sections of an application or different advertisement types. One or more of the parameters may be adjusted at a back-end server and distributed to machines in the different customer groups, allowing an efficient and centralized mechanism for managing and updating advertisement refreshing.
US 20050097002 A1 Araki, Shinichi Present giving system, present giving server system, present giving program, and present giving method - A present giving system gives a present corresponding to a category within an estimated cost on an occasion for presents and allows a present receiver to accept or reject the present selected by a present sender. A server conducting the electronic commercial transaction requests input of information of a date, information uniquely specifying a second client device, and selection items associated with the date information from a first client device, and reminds the first client device of the date and details of the selection items associated with the date information at a proper date and time before the input date. Then, the server device notifies the second client device of the selected items in accordance with the selected items selected by the first client, notifies the first client device of an item selected by the second client device, and allows the first client device to determine acceptance and rejection of the selected item.
US 20040107356 A1 Shamoon, Talal G. et al. Methods and apparatus for persistent control and protection of content - A novel method and apparatus for protection of streamed media content is disclosed. In one aspect, the apparatus includes control means for governance of content streams or content objects, decryption means for decrypting content streams or content objects under control of the control means, and feedback means for tracking actual use of content streams or content objects. The control means may operate in accordance with rules received as part of the streamed content, or through a side-band channel. The rules may specify allowed uses of the content, including whether or not the content can be copied or transferred, and whether and under what circumstances received content may be "checked out" of one device and used in a second device. The rules may also include or specify budgets, and a requirement that audit information be collected and/or transmitted to an external server. In a different aspect, the apparatus may include a media player designed to call plugins to assist in rendering content. A "trust plugin" is disclosed, along with a method of using the trust plugin so that a media player designed for use with unprotected content may render protected content without the necessity of requiring any changes to the media player. In one aspect, the streamed content may be in a number of different formats, including MPEG-4, MP3, and the RMFF format.
US 20050076051 A1 Carobus, Alexander Paul et al. Serving content-targeted ADS in e-mail, such as e-mail newsletters - Content-targeted ads are served with e-mail messages, such as HTML e-mail messages by (i) having the document publisher include a unique content identifier in the content, (ii) having a client device pass the unique content identifier to a content-relevant ad server in a content-relevant ad request, and (iii) having the content-relevant ad server use the unique contend identifier to identify previously registered content for purposes of determining content-relevant ads. In the content-relevant ad server, multiple ads may compete for desired ad attributes (e.g., relative position on a page) or features. An arbitration process may be used to choose and/or order the ads. By having the client device pass the unique content identifier to the content-relevant ad server when it needs the ads, ads can be chosen and generated all at the time the user reads (or more generally "opens") the e-mail document. This permits up-to-date ad information to be used when serving ads. User actions with respect to served ads may be tracked by (i) using an ad image to display ads in the document, and (ii) using an image map (included in the document originally served) to monitor user behavior with respect to an ad served in a document. All the information about the ad impression may be encoded in a unique identifier, which is returned, along with the ad image. The ad image and unique identifier may be provided to a client device. When a user selects an ad, this unique identifier may be returned to the ad server. A position of an image map clicked may also be returned to the ad server. The returned unique identifier and image position may be used to allow the ad server to determine which ad was selected. Thus, the unique identifier permits a selection to be matched with a previous ad serve.
Response to Amendments/Arguments
Applicant’s submitted remarks and arguments have been fully considered.
Applicant disagrees with the Office Action conclusions and asserts that the presented claims fully comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 101 regrading judicial exceptions. Further, Applicant is of the opinion that the prior art fails to teach Applicant’s invention.
Examiner respectfully disagrees in both regards.
With respect to Applicant’s Remarks as to the objections.
The objections are withdrawn, as a result of the amendments.
With respect to Applicant’s Remarks as to the claims being rejected under 35 USC § 101.
Applicant submits:
a. The pending claims are not directed to an abstract idea.
b. The identified abstract idea is integrated into a practical application.
c. The pending claims amount to significantly more.
Furthermore, Applicant asserts that the Office has failed to meet its burden to identify the abstract idea and to establish that the identified abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application and that the pending claims do not amount to significantly more.
Examiner responds – The arguments have been considered in light of Applicants’ amendments to the claims. The arguments ARE NOT PERSUASIVE. Therefore, the rejection is maintained.
The pending claims, as a whole, are directed to an abstract idea not integrated into a practical application. This is because (1) they do not effect improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field (see MPEP 2106.05 (a)); (2) they do not apply or use the abstract idea to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or a medical condition (see the Vanda memo); (3) they do not apply the abstract idea with, or by use of, a particular machine (see MPEP 2106.05 (b)); (4) they do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (see MPEP 2106.05 (c)); (5) they do not apply or use the abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the identified abstract idea to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designated to monopolize the exception (see MPEP 2106.05 (e) and the Vanda memo).
In addition, the pending claims do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
As such, the pending claims, when considered as a whole, are directed to an abstract idea not integrated into a practical application and not amounting to significantly more.
More specific:
Applicant submits “The present original disclosure provides a technical solution to that technical problem.”
Examiner has carefully considered, but doesn’t find Applicant’s arguments persuasive.
Providing a technical solution to a technical problem is, best case, a necessary, but no a sufficient eligibility condition.
Thus, the rejection is proper and has been maintained.
Applicant submits “So long as the Applicant drafts the claims to recite the technical solution, there is no reason to assert an abstract idea.”
Examiner has carefully considered, but doesn’t find Applicant’s arguments persuasive.
See response immediately above.
Thus, the rejection is proper and has been maintained.
Applicant submits “The Examiner must guard against over-abstracting the scope of the claims this continuation, however.”
Examiner has carefully considered, but doesn’t find Applicant’s arguments persuasive.
An examiner can describe an abstract idea at different levels of generality without affecting the patent-eligibility analysis. Cf Apple, Inc. v. Ameranth, Inc., 842 F.3d 1229, 1240--41 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ("An abstract idea can generally be described at different levels of abstraction .... The Board's slight revision of its abstract idea analysis does not impact the patentability analysis."). That is the case here. Regardless of the level of generality used to describe the abstract idea recited in claim 1, the result is the same – claim 1 recites an abstract idea. Cf Accenture Glob. Servs., GmbH v. Guidewire Software, Inc., 728 F.3d 1336, 1344 (Fed. Cir. 2013) ("Although not as broad as the district court's abstract idea of organizing data, it is nonetheless an abstract concept.").
Thus, the rejection is proper and has been maintained.
Applicant submits “With this amendment, the claims (as amended) recite patent eligible subject matter for similar reasons as the parent patent.”
Examiner has carefully considered, but doesn’t find Applicant’s arguments persuasive.
What it is patented are the claims, in light of the specification, but not the specification. The claim set of the instant application is different than the claim set of the parent application. Therefore, a new analysis is required for the instant set of claims.
Thus, the rejection is proper and has been maintained.
Applicant submits “Additionally, the Examiner rejected method claims 8-15 based on a software per se rationale …”
This rejection has been withdrawn.
It follows from the above that there are no meaningful limitations in the claims that transform the judicial exception into a patent eligible application such that the claims amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. Therefore, the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101 is maintained.
With respect to Applicant’s Remarks as to the claims 8-14 being rejected under 35 USC § 101.
The rejection is withdrawn, as a result of the amendments.
With respect to Applicant’s Remarks as to the claims 8-20 being rejected under 35 USC § 112(a) New Matter and Possession.
The rejection is withdrawn, as a result of the amendments.
With respect to Applicant’s Remarks as to the claims 1-7, 15-20 being rejected under 35 USC § 112(b).
The rejection is withdrawn, as a result of the amendments.
With respect to Applicant’s Remarks as to the claims 8-14 being rejected under 35 USC § 101.
The rejection is withdrawn, as a result of the amendments.
With respect to Applicant’s Remarks as to the claims being rejected under 35 USC § 103.
Applicant submits generalized remarks about the prior art utilized.
Examiner has carefully considered, but doesn’t find Applicant’s arguments persuasive.
Because applicant’s remarks are generalized, specific responses are not possible. Applicant is requested to make specific remarks with specific references to the claim language, in order to receive specific answers.
Thus, the rejection is proper and has been maintained.
The other arguments presented by Applicant continually point back to the above arguments as being the basis for the arguments against the other 103 rejections, as the other arguments are presented only because those claims depend from the independent claims, and the main argument above is presented against the independent claims. Therefore, it is believed that all arguments put forth have been addressed by the points above.
Examiner has reviewed and considered all of Applicant’s remarks. The changes of the grounds for rejection, if any, have been necessitated by Applicant’s extensive amendments to the claims. Therefore, the rejection is maintained, necessitated by the extensive amendments and by the fact that the rejection of the claims under 35 USC § 101 has not been overcome.
Conclusion
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 mailing date of this final action.
Inquiries
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Radu Andrei whose telephone number is 313.446.4948. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday – Friday 8:30am – 5pm EST. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Patrick McAtee can be reached at 571.272.7575. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
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.
As disclosed in MPEP 502.03, communications via Internet e-mail are at the discretion of the applicant. Without a written authorization by applicant in place, the USPTO will not respond via Internet e-mail to any Internet correspondence which contains information subject to the confidentiality requirement as set forth in 35 U.S.C. 122. A paper copy of such correspondence will be placed in the appropriate patent application. The following is a sample authorization form which may be used by applicant:
“Recognizing that Internet communications are not secure, I hereby authorize the USPTO to communicate with me concerning any subject matter of this application by electronic mail. I understand that a copy of these communications will be made of record in the application file.”
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center information webpage. Status information for unpublished applications is available to registered users through Patent Center information webpage only.
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.
Any response to this action should be mailed to:
Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
or faxed to 571-273-8300
/Radu Andrei/
Primary Examiner, AU 3698