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
This action is in reply to the communication filed on 05/12/2026.
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
Applicants’ amendments and arguments filed on 05/12/2026 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 “Under Step 2A, Prong Two of the USPTO's guidelines for determining subject matter eligibility, a claim is patent-eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101, even if it recites a judicial exception such as an abstract idea, if the claim is limited to a particular useful application rather than being merely directed to the abstract idea. Applicant submits that amended independent claims 1, 16, and 17 are limited to useful applications and provide particular technical solutions as explained below, and as such are not directed to the asserted abstract idea of commercial interactions or business relations. For example, amended claims 1, 16, and 17 define, among other things, a concrete server- side processing mechanism in which the controller continuously monitors a user account and determines occurrence of a payment event based on comparison of a quantity of digital currency with a threshold value defined in a registered payment condition. This comparison detects a discrete state transition of the user account from a non-occurrence state to an occurrence state, which in turn triggers an electronic payment process. The claimed comparison is not merely a simple comparison but instead is limited to being part of a continuously executed server-side monitoring and determination process, in which an electronic payment process is automatically started based on the determination result. Accordingly, the amended claims recite a specific application in which a payment process is triggered through continuous monitoring and determination performed by a server, without user intervention, which is significantly different from merely implementing a commercial interaction on a computer (page 2/4)”.
Examiner disagrees. The steps of “processing mechanism in which the controller continuously monitors a user account and determines occurrence of a payment event based on comparison of a quantity of digital currency with a threshold value defined in a registered payment condition and /or monitoring and determination process, in which an electronic payment process is automatically started based on the determination result, that provide a specific application in which a payment process is triggered through continuous monitoring and determination” are 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 namely commercial or legal interactions because they recite advertising, marketing and sales activities or behaviors because they merely gather data, analyze the data, determine results based on 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).
As stated above, since the steps of “processing mechanism in which the controller continuously monitors a user account and determines occurrence of a payment event based on comparison of a quantity of digital currency with a threshold value defined in a registered payment condition and /or monitoring and determination process, in which an electronic payment process is automatically started based on the determination result, that provide a specific application in which a payment process is triggered through continuous monitoring and determination” are directed to analyzing data and determining results based on the analysis and that analyzing data is part of the abstract idea itself, they are not capable of transforming the abstract idea into a practical application under Step 2a, Prong 2 and not capable of being considered "significantly more" under Step 2b. Only technological improvements rooted in the "additional elements" of a claim are capable of transforming an abstract idea into a practical application under Step 2a, Prong 2, and only "additional elements" are capable of being considered "significantly more" under Step 2b.
Additional elements are those elements outside of the identified abstract idea itself. In the instant case the only additional elements are “server, controller” which are just general-purpose computers with generic computing components upon which the abstract idea is applied, as (as evidenced from paragraphs 49- 50; 321-322) of Applicant’s specification; which is insufficient to transform the abstract idea into a practical application under Step 2a, Prong 2 or be considered significantly more under Step 2b. As thus, any purported technological improvement obtained by practicing the claimed invention is rooted solely in the abstract idea itself which is merely applied using the general-purpose computer, and not rooting in the additional elements upon which the abstract idea is applied. Improvements of this nature are improvement to an abstract idea which are improvements in ineligible subject matter (SAP v. Investpic decision: 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.).
Accordingly, the claim rejection of claims 1,4-6,9-18 under 35 USC § 101 is maintained.
Applicant argues that “ amended claims 1, 16, and 17 specify interaction of a controller on a server with a storage unit including storing payment history each time the electronic payment process is completed and retrieving the stored payment history to determine a completion frequency. This limitation provides, among other things, a particular data processing structure beyond mere presentation or retrieval of information, and it further reflects a concrete implementation of how the claimed controller manages and utilizes data in performing the claimed method. Independent 1, 16, and 17 as amended also recite a specific computer network implementation in which display of selection information and making a selection are performed only through an app or webpage provided on a user electronic device, which app or webpage is also used to view digital content purchased with digital currency. The claimed automatic monitoring of payment events and reward conditions, detection of a state transition, and distribution of digital currency, on the other hand, are only performed on a server side, without intervention by the user electronic device. For instance, paragraphs [0093] - [0094] disclose that the information transmission from the server (digital currency payment system) 100 is to and from an electronic device 200 logged-in with a user account. Paragraph [00102] states that the server 100 controls at least one contents server 100a. Paragraph [00190] discloses, "The controller 130 may start an electronic payment process whenever a payment event occurs at the user account, according to a monitoring result. Thus, the user may be automatically provided with a purchase service of digital currency whenever a payment condition is satisfied." Paragraphs [00199] - [00248] recognize that the controller 130 automatically issues reward digital currency based on various automatically monitored conditions, without requiring or involving intervention by the user electronic device. From these claimed features, a user electronic device is freed from the processing and storage resources that would otherwise be required to store registered payment conditions, monitor payment conditions including detecting a state transition, manage digital currency, or switch from an app or webpages displaying purchased content to a different app or webpage to perform any of these. The server, on the other hand, is freed from monitoring for a request from a user electronic device to monitor payment and reward conditions and issue digital currency, which also allows for continuous monitoring by the server. As recognized in the present specification, e.g., paragraphs [0076] - [0077], by separating the functions of the server 100 and the user electronic device 200, the claimed method provides a technical solution in that, "Monitoring such a payment event and performing an electronic payment process according to the payment event may be performed by the digital currency payment system 100 of the present invention without a user's intervention... continuous purchase of digital currency is induced through such [an automatic] payment method (page 2-3/4)”.
Examiner disagrees. the process of “ retrieving the stored payment history each time the electronic payment process is completed to determine a completion frequency and/ or automatic monitoring of payment events and reward conditions, detection of a state transition, and distribution of digital currency, on the other hand, are only performed on a server side, without intervention by the user electronic device, where the user may be automatically provided with a purchase service of digital currency whenever a payment condition is satisfied and where continuous purchase of digital currency is induced through such [an automatic] payment method are 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 namely commercial or legal interactions because they recite advertising, marketing and sales activities or behaviors because they merely gather data, analyze the data, determine results based on 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). Also, the mere nominal recitation of a generic content server and generic network-based storage devices does not take the claim out of the methods of organizing human interactions grouping]. Thus, the claim recites an abstract idea.
As stated above, since the steps of “retrieving the stored payment history each time the electronic payment process is completed to determine a completion frequency and/ or automatic monitoring of payment events and reward conditions, detection of a state transition, and distribution of digital currency, on the other hand, are only performed on a server side, without intervention by the user electronic device, where the user may be automatically provided with a purchase service of digital currency whenever a payment condition is satisfied and where continuous purchase of digital currency is induced through such [an automatic] payment method” are directed to analyzing data and determining results based on the analysis and that analyzing data is part of the abstract idea itself, they are not capable of transforming the abstract idea into a practical application under Step 2a, Prong 2 and not capable of being considered "significantly more" under Step 2b. Only technological improvements rooted in the "additional elements" of a claim are capable of transforming an abstract idea into a practical application under Step 2a, Prong 2, and only "additional elements" are capable of being considered "significantly more" under Step 2b. Additional elements are those elements outside of the identified abstract idea itself. In the instant case the only additional elements are “server, controller, display and user device” which are just general-purpose computers with generic computing components upon which the abstract idea is applied, as (evidenced from paragraphs 49- 50; 321-322) of Applicant’s specification; which is insufficient to transform the abstract idea into a practical application under Step 2a, Prong 2 or be considered significantly more under Step 2b.
As thus, any purported technological improvement obtained by practicing the claimed invention is rooted solely in the abstract idea itself which is merely applied using the general-purpose computer, and not rooting in the additional elements upon which the abstract idea is applied. Improvements of this nature are improvement to an abstract idea which are improvements in ineligible subject matter (SAP v. Investpic decision: 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 Applicant's claimed solution is NOT technological and does not addresses a technological problem. Accordingly, the claim rejection of claims 1,4-6,9-18 under 35 USC § 101 is maintained.
Applicant argues that “Claims 1, 16, and 17 as amended are not directed merely to methods of organizing human activity, business relations, or commercial transactions. Instead, these claims include meaningful limitations that integrate a digital currency distribution and content distribution method into a practical application under Step 2A, Prong Two of the USPTO's Guidelines. 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 4/4)”.
Examiner disagrees. as shown above, and in the rejection below amended claims 1,16,17 are directed to methods of organizing human activity, business relations, or commercial transactions. Instead, these claims include meaningful limitations that integrate a digital currency distribution and content distribution method. Amended claims 1,16,17also fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application under Step 2a, Prong 2 and not capable of being considered "significantly more" under Step 2b, because Only technological improvements rooted in the "additional elements" of the claim(S) are capable of transforming an abstract idea into a practical application under Step 2a, Prong 2, and only "additional elements" are capable of being considered "significantly more" under Step 2b. Additional elements are those elements outside of the identified abstract idea itself. In the instant case the only additional elements are “server, controller, display and user device” which are just general-purpose computers with generic computing components upon which the abstract idea is applied, as (evidenced from paragraphs 49- 50; 321-322) of Applicant’s specification; which is insufficient to transform the abstract idea into a practical application under Step 2a, Prong 2 or be considered significantly more under Step 2b. As such Applicant's claimed solution is NOT technological and does not addresses a technological problem. Accordingly, 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 directed to a system and a method which would be classified under one of the listed statutory classifications (i.e., 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (hereinafter “PEG”) “PEG” Step 1=Yes).
However, claims 1, 4-6, 9-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) the following abstract idea:
receiving, selection information for a payment condition for a user account from the user via one or more graphic objects displayed on one or more pages in the user environment on which the contents are viewed, wherein the user environment comprises a contents providing application installed on the user electronic device or a contents providing webpage viewable on the user electronic device that displays the selection information;
registering, a payment condition for purchasing the digital currency with the user account in a storage unit accessible based on the received selection information for 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;
without user intervention by the user: continuously monitoring the user account for an occurrence of a payment event related to the registered payment condition for a purchase of the digital currency stored, in relation to the user account, wherein the controller compares a current quantity of digital currency held in the user account stored against a threshold value of the payment condition to detect a state transition of the user account from anon-occurrence state to an occurrence state of the payment event, and 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 of the digital currency with respect to the user account in response to the detected state transition 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;
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, wherein the updates the payment history stored in the storage unit each time the electronic payment process is completed, and retrieves the updated payment history to determine the completion frequency;
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;
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, 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; and
providing, the selected content from a content server of the content providing system over the network for display in the user environment from the content providing;
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 wherein the and without user intervention by the user electronic device;
The limitations as detailed above, as drafted, falls within the “Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas namely commercial or legal interactions because they recite advertising, marketing and sales activities or behaviors. 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 a computer with one or more hardware processors coupled to a non-transitory memory and configured to execute software instructions, such as application on the controller of the server via a network, wherein the controller comprising a processor; and user electronic device, database of the storage unit (e.g. a general purpose computer with generic computer components) and a database (e.g. a generic computer component ).
The following limitations, if removed from the abstract idea and considered additional elements, merely perform generic computer function of processing, storing, communicating (e.g., transmitting and receiving), and displaying data and, as such, are insignificant extra-solution activities (see MPEP 2016.05(d)(II) and MPEP 2106.05(g)):
receiving, by a server via a network, selection information for a payment condition for a user account from the user electronic device via one or more graphic objects displayed on one or more pages in the user environment on which the contents are viewed on the user electronic device, wherein the user environment comprises a contents providing application installed on the user electronic device or a contents providing webpage viewable on the user electronic device that displays the selection information;
transmitting (e.g. providing) for display, by the controller of the server 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 over the network;
receiving, via the user environment on the user electronic device, a selected content when the user is logged-in with the user account; and
transmitting (e.g. providing) by the controller of the server, the selected content from a content server of the content providing system over the network for display in the user environment on the user electronic device from the content providing system;
More The additional technical elements above are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor and generic computer components performing a generic computers function of processing, communicating and displaying) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using one or more general-purpose computers and generic computer components. 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 one or more computers, or merely uses computers 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.
specifically, as discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of using a computer with one or more hardware processors coupled to a non-transitory memory and configured to execute software instructions, and a database (e.g. a general purpose computer with generic computer component). such as application on the controller of the server via a network, wherein the controller comprising a processor; and user electronic device, database of the storage unit (e.g. a general purpose computer with generic computer components) and a database (e.g. 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 one or more computers, 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 one or more general-purpose computer and generic computer components (as evidenced from paragraphs 49- 50; 321-322 of the applicant’s specification) and the affinity v Direct TV decision which states that a database is a generic computer component); 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, if removed from the abstract idea and considered additional elements, would be considered insignificant extra solution activity as they are directed to merely receiving, displaying, storing, and/or transmitting data (see MPEP 2016.05(d)(II) and MPEP 2106.05(g)):
receiving, by a server via a network, selection information for a payment condition for a user account from the user electronic device via one or more graphic objects displayed on one or more pages in the user environment on which the contents are viewed on the user electronic device, wherein the user environment comprises a contents providing application installed on the user electronic device or a contents providing webpage viewable on the user electronic device that displays the selection information;
transmitting (e.g. providing) for display, by the controller of the server 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 over the network;
receiving, via the user environment on the user electronic device, a selected content when the user is logged-in with the user account; and
transmitting (e.g. providing) by the controller of the server, the selected content from a content server of the content providing system over the network for display in the user environment on the user electronic device from the content providing system;
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.
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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The most relevant prior the examiner has found is:
Johangir et al, US Pub No: 2013/0217361 A1 teaches: A mobile wireless device which operates in a wireless network is capable of: displaying a request for a user specified subscriber identification code on a GUI, receiving a single entry of the user specified subscriber identification code from the GUI, appending a code specifying a request for a type of activation and a request for data representing customer specific services to the subscriber identification code to form an activation code, transmitting the activation code to a control center wherein the transmission of the activation code results from the single entry of the user specified subscriber identification code into the GUI, receiving data representing customer specific services from the control center in response to the transmission of the activation code, and storing the received data representing the customer specific services in the memory.
Davis et al, US Pub No: 2010/0312678 A1 teaches: Systems and methods are provided to facilitate online transactions via mobile communications. In one aspect, a system includes an interchange coupled with a data storage facility. The interchange includes a common format processor and a plurality of converters to interface with a plurality of different controllers of mobile communications. The converters are configured to communicate with the controllers in different formats and to communicate with the common format processor in a common format. The common format processor is to instruct a first controller of the controllers, via a first converter of the converters, to communicate with a mobile phone at a mobile phone number of a user to confirm a request to add funds to an account of a user, if the user has not yet provided an advance authorization. If the user has provided the advance authorization, the interchange skips communications with the mobile phone to confirm the request.
As thus, none of the cited reference discloses the claimed features of independent of claims 1, 4-6, 9-18. As such, the examiner, has been unable to find prior art that discloses the combination of the claimed features. Accordingly, the claims contain subject matter that would be allowable over the prior art if the applicant to be able to overcome the Claim rejections under 35 USC § 101 above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
Lao: US Pub No: 2002/0198846 A1, teaches A system and method for managing use of items having usage rights associated therewith. The system includes an activation device adapted to issue a software package having a public and private key pair, the public key being associated with a user, a license device adapted to issue a license, a usage device adapted to receive the software package, receive the license and allow the user to access the item in accordance with the license, and a subscription managing device adapted to maintain a subscription list including the public key associated with the user. License's is issued by the license device upon verifying presence of the public key in the subscription list corresponding to requested content.
Elliott, US Pub No: 2018/0300805 A1, teaches A system and method for performing a purchase transaction using rewards points by receiving a purchase request using a financial account with associated account information, determining based on the account information that the financial account is associated with a rewards program with rewards points, and providing the option to pay for the purchase using the financial account or at least a portion of the rewards points. The purchase may be paid for using rewards points from multiple rewards programs and/or multiple financial accounts.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is files within TWO MONTHS from 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.
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 [ Mon-Thursday 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
Prosecution Insights