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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 9/3/2025 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments and amendments with respect to claims 1 and 3-10 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.
The Examiner notes that the amendment to claim 1 now reads on the Oates base reference in view of the newly cited Wuhrer prior art reference (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 and 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oates, III (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2017/0006074) in view of Wuhrer et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2012/0226588).
Referring to claim 1, Oates discloses a content distribution system comprising: a content distributing unit that distributes a content (see Figure 1A and Paragraph 0290).
Oates also discloses a gift receiving unit that receives a request of a gift of which multiple types exist from a viewer when distributing the content (see Paragraphs 0294 for receiving requests indicating participation in a current broadcast).
Oates also discloses a gift providing unit that executes a process for providing the gift from the viewer (see Figure 18 and Paragraphs 0310-0311 for the viewer using the UI to provide a pane that allows a participant to choose another user to receive a gift).
Oates discloses a reward unit that gives a reward to the viewer (see Paragraphs 0310-0311 to give a reward to a viewer), wherein the viewer provides a predefined combination comprising at least two different gift types, the reward unit enables a reward gift type that is different from each gift type in the predefined combination to be provided to the viewer as the reward (see Figure 18 and Paragraphs 0310-0311 for providing UI interface 1846 for providing gifts and UI interface 1848 for receiving rewards).
Oates fails to disclose that when the viewer provides gifts, the reward unit enables a reward. In other words, a reward is not given to a viewer in response to the viewer providing gifts.
Wuhrer discloses that when the viewer provides gifts, the reward unit enables a reward (see Paragraph 0068).
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 gift/reward system, as taught by Oates, using the viewer reward functionality, as taught by Wuhrer, for the purpose of efficiently purchasing desired products provided by a business or merchant (see the bottom of Paragraph 0005 of Wuhrer).
Referring to claim 8, Oates discloses that the gift is sold to the viewer, and when a total amount of the gift purchased by the viewer reaches a predetermined value, the reword unit enables the viewer to provide a gift which is different from the gift provided by the viewer according to the predefined combination (see Paragraph 0227).
Referring to claim 9, Oates discloses that when a number of points is set for the gift, and when a total amount of the points set for the gift provided by the viewer reaches a predetermined value, the reword unit enables the viewer to provide a gift which is different from the gift provided by the viewer according to the predefined combination (see Paragraph 0073).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oates, III (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2017/0006074) in view of Wuhrer et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2012/0226588) in further view of Cui et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2023/0015800).
Referring to claim 3, Oates and Wuhrer disclose all of the limitations of claim 1, as well as Oates teaching that a viewer can provide a combination of two or more identical or different types of gifts and purchasing the gifts (see Figure 18 and Paragraph 0310 for allowing a viewer to give gifts to different participants and Paragraphs 0262 and 0342 for purchasing gifts) as well as teaching that the gifts are a predefined combination of gifts (see the rejection of claim 1), but fail to teach that the reward unit that enables the viewer to provide a different gift as the reward, wherein the different gift is determined so that the different gift is different from the from the gift provided by the viewer according to a combination.
Cui discloses reward unit that the reward unit that enables the viewer to provide a different gift as the reward, wherein the different gift is determined so that the different gift is different from the from the gift provided by the viewer according to a combination (see Paragraphs 0088 and 0108).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, to modify the gift purchasing system, as taught by Oates and Wuhrer , using the different suggested gift functionality, as taught by Cui, for the purpose of providing gift lists that can be seen in live broadcast rooms where hosts broadcasting in different regions are located can vary (see Paragraph 0004 of Cui).
Claims 4-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oates, III (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2017/0006074) in view of Wuhrer et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2012/0226588) in further view of Jessup et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2013/0268377).
Referring to claim 4, Oates and Wuhrer disclose all of the limitations of claim 1, as well as Oates teaching that the gifts are a predefined combination of gifts (see the rejection of claim 1), but fail to teach that when the viewer provided the predefined combination, the reward unit enables the viewer to provide a different gift as the reward, wherein the different gift is determined so that the different gift is different from the gift provided by the viewer.
Jessup discloses that when the viewer provided the predefined combination, the reward unit enables the viewer to provide a different gift as the reward, wherein the different gift is determined so that the different gift is different from the gift provided by the viewer (see Paragraph 0112 for allowing viewers to suggest additional gifts based on previously presented gifts).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, to modify the gift purchasing system, as taught by Oates and Wuhrer, using the different suggested gift functionality, as taught by Jessup, for the purpose of providing a gift recommendation service, wherein a user can use the service at a time while those users are actively seeking to make purchasing decision and will be seeking support from other users to make that decision (see the bottom of Paragraph 0049 of Jessup).
Referring to claim 5, Oates and Wuhrer disclose all of the limitations of claim 1, but fail to teach that when the viewer provides the predefined combination, the reward unit changes an appearance on the viewer’s screen to a predefined appearance.
Jessup discloses that the viewer provides the predefined combination, the reward unit changes an appearance on the viewer’s screen to a predefined appearance (see Paragraph 0112 for allowing viewers to suggest additional gifts based on previously presented gifts, therefore the screen that presents the additional gifts is a predefined display, as broadly claimed).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, to modify the gift purchasing system, as taught by Oates and Wuhrer, using the different suggested gift functionality, as taught by Jessup, for the purpose of providing a gift recommendation service, wherein a user can use the service at a time while those users are actively seeking to make purchasing decision and will be seeking support from other users to make that decision (see the bottom of Paragraph 0049 of Jessup).
Claim 6 corresponds to claim 5, wherein Jessup further discloses that the viewer further provides a predetermined combination of two or more gifts after changing the appearance on the viewer’s screen to the predefined appearance, the reward unit further enables the viewer to provide a different gift as the reward, wherein the different gift is determined so that the different gift is different form the gifts provided by the viewer (see Paragraph 0112 for allowing viewers to suggest additional gifts based on previously presented gifts and Paragraphs 0049 and 0052-0053 for allowing the users to purchase the gifts suggested to them, therefore if a user purchases an additional gift, this is a gift that was different from the initial gift selection previously provided).
Claim 7 corresponds to claim 5, wherein Jessup also discloses that the viewer further provides a predetermined combination of the two or more gifts after changing the appearance of the viewer’s screen to the predefined appearance, the reward unit causes a predetermined event to occur (see Paragraph 0112 for allowing viewers to suggest additional gifts based on previously presented gifts and Paragraphs 0049 and 0052-0053 for allowing the users to purchase the gifts suggested to them, therefore a predetermined event in the form of allowing a user to purchase the additional suggested gifts occurs).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oates, III (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2017/0006074) in view of Wuhrer et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2012/0226588) in further view of Pfeffer et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2023/0015800).
Referring to claim 10, Oates and Wuhrer disclose all of the limitations of claim 1, as well as Oates disclosing a gift proposing unit that proposes the gift that the viewer can purchase and a related gift storage unit that stores a related gift which is associated with the gift (see Figure 18 and Paragraphs 0310-0311), but fail to teach that when a predetermined gift is purchased, the gift proposing unit identifies the related gift corresponding to the predetermined gif from the related gift storage unit and proposes the identified related gift to the viewer who purchased the predetermined gift.
Pfeffer discloses that when a predetermined gift is purchased, the gift proposing unit identifies the related gift corresponding to the predetermined gif from the related gift storage unit and proposes the identified related gift to the viewer who purchased the predetermined gift (see Paragraphs 0065, Figure 6 and Paragraphs 0067-0070).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, to modify the gift purchasing system, as taught by Oates and Wuhrer, using suggested related gift functionality, as taught by Pfeffer, for the purpose of providing overall fairness and may provide the business that had been assigned the customer with a new assignment (see Paragraph 0069 of Pfeffer).
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
October 7, 2025