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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17 (e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 09/10/2025 has been entered.
Claims 1, 16-17 have been amended.
Claims 2-3, 7-8 have been canceled.
Claims 1, 4-6, 9-18 are currently pending and have been examined.
Response to Applicant’s Arguments
Applicant’s amendments and arguments filed on 09/10/2025 have been fully considered and discussed in the next section. Applicant is reminded that the claims must be given its broadest, reasonable interpretation.
With regard to claims 1, 4-6, 9-18 rejection under 35 USC § 101:
Applicant argues that “claims 1, 16, 17 as amended are not directed merely to methods of organizing human activity, nor directed merely to financial transactions. Instead, the claims when considered as a whole at least integrate the asserted judicial exception ("Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity") into a practical application for improving the technical field (technology) of electronic payment processing and digital content viewing, and provide significantly more than the asserted judicial exception (page 2/5)”.
Examiner disagrees. Claims 1, 16-17 as amended recite the abstract idea of “performing a payment for an automatic purchase of digital currency used in contents viewing content”. As such independent claims 1 and 16-17 are directed to electronic payment processing and digital viewing . Accordingly, claims 1, 16-17 as amended falls within the “Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity” and financial transactions.
“performing a payment for an automatic purchase of digital currency used in contents viewing content” it is a business process. As such, the examiner finds that any improvement obtained by practicing the claimed invention is an improvement to a business process. Second, under Step 2a, Prong 2, the improvement to a technology or technological field must be rooted in the additional element. Additional elements are those elements outside of the identified abstract idea itself. In the instant case the only additional elements are “processor, device, display and system” which are just general-purpose computers with generic computing components upon which the abstract idea is applied human which is insufficient to transform an abstract idea into a practical application under Step 2a, Prong 2 or be considered significantly more under Step 2b.
As evident by Applicant’s specification “the electronic device 200 may be a portable phone, a smart phone, a notebook computer, a laptop computer, a slate PC, a tablet PC, an ultrabook, a desktop computer, a digital broadcasting terminal, a personal digital assistant (PDA), a portable multimedia player (PMP), a navigation, a wearable device (e.g., a smartwatch), a glass type terminal (a smart glass), a head mounted display (HMD), etc ( paragraph 50). in the present invention, the aforementioned computer is an electronic device where a processor, i.e., a Central Processing Unit (CPU) is mounted, and there is no limitation on a type of the computer ( paragraph 322)”; ..
These additional elements do not improve computer functionality or another technology or a technical field. They do not implement the abstract idea on a machine that is integral to the claim. The do not transform or reduce a particular article to a different state or thing. Nor do not transform tor reduce a particular articular to a different state or thing. Nor do they apply he abstract idea in a meaningful way beyond linking its use to a particular technological environment. See Revised Guidance ar 55: MPEP 2106.04 (d) (I) Final Act. A generic computer implementation does not render an abstract idea patent eligible. See Alice, 573 U.S at 223 (“ [ T] he mere recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a patent -ineligible abstract idea into a patent -eligible invention. Stating an abstract idea ‘ while adding the words “apply it” is not enough for patent eligibility)”.
As thus, any improvement obtained by practicing the abstract idea, is an improvement obtained by practicing the abstract idea and not rooting in the additional elements upon which the abstract idea is applied. Improvements of this nature are not patent eligible (see SAP v. Investpic: Page 2, line 22 through Page 3, line 13 - Even assuming that the algorithms claimed are groundbreaking, innovative or even brilliant, the claims are ineligible because their innovation is an innovation in ineligible subject matter because there are nothing but a series of mathematical algorithms based on selected information and the presentation of the results of those algorithms. Thus, the advance lies entirely in the realm of abstract ideas, with no plausible alleged innovation in the non-abstract application realm. An advance of this nature is ineligible for patenting; and Page 10, lines 18-24 - Even if a process of collecting and analyzing information is limited to particular content, or a particular source, that limitations does not make the collection and analysis other than abstract.). According, the claim rejection of claims 1, 4-6, 9-18 under 35 USC § 101, is maintained.
Applicant argues that “it is not required or conventional for commercial interactions, business relations, or even digital payment systems, to: receive selection information for a payment condition via one or more graphic objects that are displayed on the same user electronic device on which contents purchased with digital currency are viewed; continuously monitor a user account for an occurrence of a payment event that is related to a registered payment condition and stored in a storage unit; automatically start an electronic payment process for digital currency that is cyber money having a monetary value stored electronically; without user intervention, automatically monitor the user account for an occurrence of a next payment event after supplying the purchased digital currency to the user account search a payment history for a user account in the storage unit to count a completion frequency; or search a preset database of the storage unit to determine a quantity of reward digital currency. Instead, these features improve the functioning of the technology (technical field) of electronic payments for digital currency and digital content viewing by providing useful interfaces, registration, and automatic (without user intervention) monitoring features with resulting digital payments and supplying of digital currency at multiple stages. Accordingly, amended claims 1, 16, 17 are not directed merely to methods of organizing human activity, business relations, or commercial transactions without something more. For at least the above reasons, Applicant respectfully submits that claims 1, 4-6, and 9-18 as amended are directed to patentable subject matter under 35 U.S.C.101 (page 3/5)”.
Examiner disagrees. the recitation of “ receive selection information for a payment condition via one or more graphic objects that are displayed on the same user electronic device on which contents purchased with digital currency are viewed; continuously monitor a user account for an occurrence of a payment event that is related to a registered payment condition and stored in a storage unit; automatically start an electronic payment process for digital currency that is cyber money having a monetary value stored electronically; without user intervention, automatically monitor the user account for an occurrence of a next payment event after supplying the purchased digital currency to the user account search a payment history for a user account in the storage unit to count a completion frequency; or search a preset database of the storage unit to determine a quantity of reward digital currency” is is directed to analyzing data and determining results based on the analysis.
Since analyzing data is part of the abstract idea itself, any improvement obtained by automating the analyzing of the data in an improvement to the abstract idea which is an improvement in ineligible subject matters (see SAP v. Investpic: Page 2, line 22 through Page 3, line 13 - Even assuming that the algorithms claimed are groundbreaking, innovative or even brilliant, the claims are ineligible because their innovation is an innovation in ineligible subject matter because they are nothing but a series of mathematical algorithms based on selected information and the presentation of the results of those algorithms. Thus, the advance lies entirely in the realm of abstract ideas, with no plausible alleged innovation in the non-abstract application realm. An advance of this nature is ineligible for patenting; and Page 10, lines 18-24 - Even if a process of collecting and analyzing information is limited to particular content, or a particular source, that limitations does not make the collection and analysis other than abstract.
As such, the claims as drafted, falls within the “Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas as it relates to commercial interactions of advertising, marketing, or sales activities or behaviors; business relations, because the merely gather data, analyze the data, determine results based upon the analysis, generate tailored content based on the results, and transmit the tailored content. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea (i.e. MPEP Revised Step 2A Prong One=Yes).
Indeed, the identified improvements recited by Applicant are really, at best improvements to the performance of the abstract idea (e.g., improvements made in the underlying business method (electronic payments for digital currency and digital content viewing by providing useful interfaces, registration, and automatic (without user intervention) monitoring features with resulting digital payments and supplying of digital currency at multiple stages) and not in the operations of any additional elements or technology.
As such, the examiner finds that any improvement obtained by practicing the claimed invention is an improvement to a business process. Second, under Step 2a, Prong 2, the improvement to a technology or technological field must be rooted in the additional element.
As such, the examiner finds that any improvement obtained by practicing the claimed invention is an improvement to a business process. Second, under Step 2a, Prong 2, the improvement to a technology or technological field must be rooted in the additional element. Additional elements are those elements outside of the identified abstract idea itself. In the instant case the only additional elements are “processor, device, display and system” which are just general-purpose computers with generic computing components upon which the abstract idea is applied human which is insufficient to transform an abstract idea into a practical application under Step 2a, Prong 2 or be considered significantly more under Step 2b.
As thus, any improvement obtained by practicing the abstract idea, is an improvement obtained by practicing the abstract idea and not rooting in the additional elements upon which the abstract idea is applied. Improvements of this nature are not patent eligible (see SAP v. Investpic: Page 2, line 22 through Page 3, line 13 - Even assuming that the algorithms claimed are groundbreaking, innovative or even brilliant, the claims are ineligible because their innovation is an innovation in ineligible subject matter because there are nothing but a series of mathematical algorithms based on selected information and the presentation of the results of those algorithms. Thus, the advance lies entirely in the realm of abstract ideas, with no plausible alleged innovation in the non-abstract application realm. An advance of this nature is ineligible for patenting; and Page 10, lines 18-24 - Even if a process of collecting and analyzing information is limited to particular content, or a particular source, that limitations does not make the collection and analysis other than abstract.). As such Applicant's claimed solution is NOT technological and does not addresses a technological problem. According, the claim rejection of claims 1, 4-6, 9-18 under 35 USC § 101, is maintained.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 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, 4-6, 9-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception subject matter, specifically an abstract idea. The analysis for this determination is explained below:
Step 1, determine whether the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter.
In this case, claim(s) 1, 4-6, 9-15, 18 are directed to a process (i.e. a method); claim (s) 16 is directed to a system (i.e. an apparatus); claim (s) 17 is directed to a manufacturer (i.e. a non transitory computer medium).
The claimed invention is directed to at least one judicial exception (i.e a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claim 1 for instance recite(s) the following abstract idea of “ performing a payment for an automatic purchase of digital currency used in contents viewing in a user environment on a user electronic device”. Claim 1 recites the following abstract idea limitations of : “ receiving selection information for a payment condition from a user account via one or more graphic objects displayed on one or more pages in the user environment on which the contents are viewed: registering a payment condition for purchasing the digital currency with a user account, based on receiving the payment condition from the user account, wherein the payment condition is related to at least one of a quantity of the digital currency held in the user account and a scheduled payment date on which an electronic payment process is performed; monitoring occurrence of a payment event related to a preset the payment condition for a purchase of the digital currency, in relation to a user account, wherein when the payment condition is related to the quantity of digital currency, determines that the payment event has not occurred in the user account when the quantity of digital currency held in the user account is equal to or greater than a preset threshold quantity; and determines that the payment event has occurred in the user account when the quantity of digital currency held in the user account is less than the preset threshold quantity; automatically, starting an electronic payment process for purchase f the digital currency with respect to the user account when the payment event has occurred at the user account as a monitoring result, the digital currency including cyber money having a monetary value stored electronically;supplying purchased digital currency to the user account when the purchase of the digital currency has been completed through the electronic payment process;without user intervention, automatically monitoring the user account for an occurrence of a next payment event after supplying the purchased digital currency to the user account;counting a completion frequency of the electronic payment process associated with the user account, based on the completion of supplying the purchased digital currency, including searching a payment history stored in the storage unit and corresponding to the user account;determining whether the counted completion frequency satisfies a reward condition for supplying reward digital currency, in addition to the purchased digital currency;determining a quantity of the reward digital currency to be supplied to the user account, based on the counted completion frequency, when the completion frequency satisfies the reward condition, including searching a preset database of the storage unit;supplying the determined quantity of reward digital currency to the user account so that content viewing and digital currency purchases are continuously performed;providing for display, via the user environment on the user electronic device, information for at least one of the contents and information on digital currency required for viewing each content;receiving, via the user environment on the user electronic device, a selected content when the user is logged-in with the user account; andproviding the selected content for display in the user environment on the user electronic device from the content providing system; wherein an amount of the reward digital currency supplied to the user account is changed according to a change in the completion frequency of the electronic payment process”.
The limitations as detailed above, as drafted, falls within the “Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas as it relates to commercial interactions of advertising, marketing, or sales activities or behaviors; business relations, because the merely gather data, analyze the data, determine results based upon the analysis, generate tailored content based on the results, and transmit the tailored content. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea (i.e. “PEG” Revised Step 2A Prong One=Yes)
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claim only recites the additional elements of “processor, system, display, device and electronic payment process (claims 1 and 17), “system, storage unit, controller , system, display, device and electronic payment process (claim 16)”. The additional technical elements above are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e. as a generic processor performing a generic computer function of processing, communicating and displaying) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional technical elements above do not integrate the abstract idea/judicial exception into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. More specifically, the additional elements fail to include (1) improvements to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field (see MPEP 2106.05(a)), (2) applying or using a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition (see Vanda memo), (3) applying the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine (see MPEP 2106.05(b)), (4) effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (see MPEP 2106.05(c)), or (5) applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (see MPEP 2106.05(e) and Vanda memo).
Rather, the limitations merely add the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)), or generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Thus, the claim is “directed to” an abstract idea (i.e. “PEG” Revised Step 2A Prong Two=Yes)
When considering Step 2B of the Alice/Mayo test, the claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claims do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
More specifically, as discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of using “processor, system, display, device, storage unit (claims 1 and 17), “system, storage unit, controller , system, display, device (claim 16)”, to perform the claimed functions amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
“Generic computer implementation” is insufficient to transform a patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention (See Affinity Labs, _F.3d_, 120 U.S.P.Q.2d 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2016), citing Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2352, 2357) and more generally, “simply appending conventional steps specified at a high level of generality” to an abstract idea does not make that idea patentable (See Affinity Labs, _F.3d_, 120 U.S.P.Q.2d 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2016), citing Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1300). Moreover, “the use of generic computer elements like a microprocessor or user interface do not alone transform an otherwise abstract idea into patent-eligible subject matter (See FairWarning, 120 U.S.P.Q.2d. 1293, citing DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1256 (Fed. Cir. 2014)). As such, the additional elements of the claim do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they would be generic computer functions in any computer implementation. Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of the computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide generic computer implementation.
The Examiner notes simply implementing an abstract concept on a computer, without meaningful limitations to that concept, does not transform a patent-ineligible claim into a patent-eligible one (See Accenture, 728 F.3d 1336, 108 U.S.P.Q.2d 1173 (Fed. Cir. 2013), citing Bancorp, 687 F.3d at 1280), limiting the application of an abstract idea to one field of use does not necessarily guard against preempting all uses of the abstract idea (See Accenture, 728 F.3d 1336, 108 U.S.P.Q.2d 1173 (Fed. Cir. 2013), citing Bilski, 130 S. Ct. at 3231), and further the prohibition against patenting an abstract principle “cannot be circumvented by attempting to limit the use of the [principle] to a particular technological environment” (See Accenture, 728 F.3d 1336, 108 U.S.P.Q.2d 1173 (Fed. Cir. 2013), citing Flook, 437 U.S. at 584), and finally merely limiting the field of use of the abstract idea to a particular existing technological environment does not render the claims any less abstract (See Affinity Labs, _F.3d_, 120 U.S.P.Q.2d 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2016), citing Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2358; Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1294; Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 612 (2010); Content Extraction & Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, Nat’l Ass’n, 776 F.3d 1343, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2014); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2014).
Applicant herein only requires a general purpose computers communicating over a general purpose network (as evidenced from paragraphs 49- 50; 321-322); therefore, there does not appear to be any alteration or modification to the generic activities indicated, and they are also therefore recognized as insignificant activity with respect to eligibility. Finally, the following limitations are considered insignificant extra solution activity as they are directed to merely receiving, storing and/or transmitting data:
receiving selection information for a payment condition from a user account via one or more graphic objects displayed on one or more pages in the user environment on which the contents are viewed:
receiving, via the user environment on the user electronic device, a selected content when the user is logged-in with the user account;
Thus, taken individually and in combination, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea) (i.e. “PEG” Step 2B=No).
For the same reason these elements are not sufficient to provide an inventive concept. For these reasons, there is no inventive concept in the claim, and thus the claim is not patent eligible. Same judicial analysis is applied here to independent claims 16-17.
The dependent claims 4-6,9-15,18 appears to merely further limit the abstract idea of Certain methods of organizing Human Activity” as it relates to commercial interactions of advertising, marketing, or sales activities or behaviors; business relations), by adding the additional steps of “ w herein when the completion frequency of the electronic payment process satisfies a reward condition, a purchase amount of the digital currency corresponding to a payment price of the digital currency, and a reward amount of the additional predetermined amount of digital currency corresponding to the reward are supplied to the user account (claim 4); wherein the purchase amount of the digital currency and the reward amount of the digital currency have available periods for viewing the contents set differently from each other (claim 5); wherein the available period for viewing the contents with the reward amount of the digital currency is set as a period after a preset time duration on the basis of a reference date when the supply of the reward amount of the digital currency has occurred (claim 6); wherein the reward amount of the digital currency is changed according to the purchase amount of the digital currency purchased in correspondence to the payment price, and wherein matching information on reward amount of the digital currency respectively matched with the purchase amount of the digital currency is stored in a preset database (DB) (claim 9); in a case where a change request for the purchase amount of the digital currency is received from the user account, registering purchase request information on a changed purchase amount corresponding to the change request, to the user account, wherein in the supplying of the predetermined amount of the reward digital currency, when the completion frequency of the electronic payment process based on the payment event generated at the user account satisfies the preset reward condition, after the purchase request information has been registered, a purchase amount of the digital currency and a reward amount of the digital currency matched with the changed purchase amount are supplied, and wherein the reward amount matched with the changed purchase amount is specified based on the matching information (claim 10); starting a refund process for refunding the payment price corresponding to the purchase amount of the digital currency, in a case where a refund request for the purchase amount of the digital currency is received from the user account, wherein in the refund process, a check is made to determine whether there exists the reward amount of the digital currency already supplied at the user account, based on the digital currency having been purchased, and wherein when there exists an already-supplied reward amount of the digital currency as a check result, the already-supplied reward amount of the digital currency is withdrawn from the user account, based on completion of a refund of the payment price (claim 11); wherein the payment condition is related to at least one of a quantity of the digital currency held in the user account , and wherein the payment event occurs when the quantity of digital currency held in the user account is less than the preset threshold quantity (claim 12); wherein reference amount information on the preset threshold quantity and purchase amount information on a purchase amount of the digital currency are stored in the user account in a matching manner, wherein in the supplying of the purchased digital currency, when the payment event occurs, the electronic payment process is performed such that the digital currency is purchased with a purchase amount corresponding to the purchase amount information stored in the user account in a matching manner; wherein the contents consist of at least one episode, and wherein each of the at least one episode has one of a charged product type which can be viewed through a payment of the digital currency, and a free product type which can be viewed without a payment of the digital currency (claim 14); wherein a product type of a specific episode having the charged product type, among the at least one episode, is converted into a free product type based on lapse of a preset time (claim 15); wherein the preset payment condition is received via the user environment on the user electronic device when the user electronic device is logged-in with the user account (claim 18).
Therefore, only further limit the abstract idea (i.e. “PEG” Revised Step 2A Prong One=Yes), does/do not include any new additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, and as such are “directed to” said abstract idea (i.e. “PEG” Step 2A Prong Two=Yes); and do not add significantly more than the idea (i.e. “PEG” Step 2B=No)..
Thus, the dependent claims further narrows the abstract idea and/or recite additional elements previously rejected in the independent claim 1, 16-17.
Accordingly, the claim fails to recite any improvements to another technology or technical field, improvements to the functioning of the computer itself, use of a particular machine, effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, adding unconventional steps that confine the claim to a particular useful application, and/or meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular environment. See 84 Fed. Reg. 55. Viewed individually or as a whole, these additional claim element(s) do not provide meaningful limitation(s) to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claim(s) amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 /103
Examiner is not able to find a prior art for the limitation of independent claims 1 and 16-17. Thus, independent claims 1,16-17 contain limitations that appear to overcome the prior art of record, and do not appear to be limitations that would be obvious to combine with the prior art of record should references which teach said limitations be found.
Possible Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1, 4-6, 9-18 recite subject matter that would be allowable over the prior art if the Applicant were to be able to overcome the claim rejection under 35 USC § 101 rejection above
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
Geer , US Pub no: 2011/0112915 A1, teaches dynamic integration of advertising content and media content.
Elliott, US Pub no: 2018/0300805 A1, teaches system and method for performing a purchase transaction using rewards points.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Affaf Ahmed whose telephone number is 571-270-1835. The examiner can normally be reached on [M- R 8-6 pm ].
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ilana Spar can be reached at 571-270-7537. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/AFAF OSMAN BILAL AHMED/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3622