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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 1/5/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-5 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.
Applicant further argues that the claims cannot be performed using pencil and paper and that the Examiner does not describe how the claims would be performed using pencil and paper. As previously stated, Applicant argues that consuming media content on an electronic device inherently requires an electronic device. As previously stated, the claims do not recite an electronic device. The claims only recite a user device (pencil) and media content (the paper). The claims do not recite a single computer component. Further, as previously stated in the previous Office Action, even if an electronic device was claimed, the Alice case law states that the claims cannot recite a generic computer device to perform an abstract idea. The rejection stands.
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 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recites presentation of media content to a user device and presenting a notification that another user has purchased the media content that the was presented to the user device. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claims can be accomplished using pencil and paper. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claims can be performed using pencil and paper (abstract idea).
Claims 1-5 are directed to presenting information (see Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alston S.A., Alstom Grid INC., Psymetrix LTD., Alstom Limited, 2015-1778). In regards to step 2A, the claims are clearly focused on the combination of those abstract-idea processes. The advance they purport to make is a process of presenting information of a specified content and not any particular assuredly inventive technology directed to an abstract idea. The claims limitations can be performed using pencil and paper (see in re Bilski).
In regards to step 2B, the claims further do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claims do not go beyond requiring the presenting information in a particular filed, stating those functions in general terms, without limiting them to technical means for performing the functions that are arguably an advance over conventional computer and network technology. Limiting the claims to the particular technological environment of data collection and processing, without more, insufficient to transform them into patent-eligible applications of the abstract idea at their core (see Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2358; Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1294; Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593). Merely presenting information does nothing significant to differentiate a process from ordinary mental processes, whose implicit exclusion from § 101 undergirds the information-based category of abstract ideas.
Inquiry then must turn to any requirements for how the desired result is achieved. In the instant application, the claims' invocation of a user device does not transform the claimed subject matter into patent-eligible applications. The claims at issue do not require any non-conventional computer, network, or display components, or even a “non-conventional and non-generic arrangement of known, conventional pieces,” but merely call for performance of the claimed information presentation functions “on a set of generic computer components” and user device (Bascom, 2016 WL 3514158, at *6-7). The Examiner further notes the rebuttal above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 3-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The term “receiving…” in claim 3 is unclear which portions of the claim are being referenced.
Referring to claims 4-5, see the rejection of claim 3.
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 1-2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seok et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2009/0197523) in view of Young (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2020/0184528) in further view of Walker et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2011/0264768).
Referring to claim 1, Seok discloses receiving, from a paying user, a payment for a then-unidentified future-consuming user to consume media content (see Paragraph 0029 for designating a second user device to receive media content paid for by the first user device).
Seok also discloses presenting the media content to a user device associated with the future consuming user (see the providing step in claim 1).
Seok also discloses presenting, in conjunction with the media content, a notification that the presentation of the media content, associated with the future-consuming user, as paid for (see the bottom of Paragraph 0034).
Seok fails to teach that the notification indicates that another individual or user paid in whole or in part for the content.
Young discloses a gift system that sends a notification, to a user that receives the gift, indicating which user provided the gift (see Paragraph 0017).
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 notification, as taught by Seok, to include the information of the purchasing user, for the purpose of allowing the user who received the gift to send a thank you to the user who purchased the gift (see Paragraph 0017 of Young).
Seok and Young fail to teach that the identity of the future-consuming user is unknown to the paying user at the time the payment is received from the paying user.
Walker discloses a collective payment system that lets users in a group to contribute money into a common fund that is used to pay for the group’s content, therefore the identity of the user that will later use the common fund to receive content for free is unknown to the user contributing to the common fund (see Paragraph 0140).
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 notification, as taught by Seok and Young, to include the collective payment system, for the purpose of allowing contributing users to contribute content for the benefit of a viewing user (see Paragraph 0037).
Claim 2 corresponds to claim 1, Young discloses that the notification that another individual or user paid in whole or in part comprises a notification that the playing user paid in whole or in part (see Paragraph 0017).
Claim 3 corresponds to claim 1, wherein Walker discloses that prior to the receiving step, presenting the media content to the paying user (see Paragraphs 0022 and 0034 for the user device also being capable of viewing requested content and Paragraph 0064 for sharing content with family and friends).
Claims 4 and 5 correspond to claim 1, wherein Walker discloses that the receiving step comprises receiving, from a paying user, a payment for at least two or ten future consuming users are unknown to the paying user at the time the payment is received from the paying user (see the rejection of claim 1 and further note that a group of users contribute to the collective fund, wherein a group is defined as two or more users).
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
January 13, 2026