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
This action is in response to the amendment filed 9/14/2026. Applicant has elected Species A-2 (2, 5-7 and 15) without traverse on 1/23/2026 and further amended claims 1-2, 5-8, 10-11, 13-15 and 18-20 on 9/14/2026 in response to Notice of Non-Compliant Amendment. Non-elected claims 3-4, 12, 17 are withdrawn. Accordingly, claims 1-2, 5-11, 13-16 and 18-20 are pending for examination.
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 1-2, 5-11, 13-16 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claims 1, 19 and 20 recite the abstract idea of “receiving a share structure for distribution of a usage fee and distribute a share of usage fee to recipient”, which is grouped under “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” such as “commercial or legal interactions” (including agreements in the form of contracts; sales activities or behaviors) (MPEP 2016.04(a)). Specifically, claims 1, 19 and 20 recite “receive … including at least one of: a likeness of a user associated with the distribution recipient and a likeness of a property associated with the distribution recipient”, “receive a share structure for distribution of a usage fee and distribute a share of the usage fee to the distribution recipient when a usage event is detected” and “wherein the share is set by the share structure”. Claims 2, 5-11, 13-16 and 18 are dependent on claims 1, 19 and 20 and include all the limitations of claims 1, 19 and 20. Therefore, claims 2, 5-11, 13-16 and 18 recite the same abstract idea of “receiving a share structure for distribution of a usage fee and distribute a share of usage fee to recipient”. The limitations recited in the depending claims (For example, the approving (approval), transmitting, assisting, generating, enabling, filtering, determining, receiving, confirming, approving, converting, displaying and distributing steps and the specific type of usage fee used are further details of the abstract idea and not significantly more. The concept described in claims 1-2, 5-11, 13-16 and 18-20 are not meaningfully different than those concepts found by the courts to be abstract ideas. As such, the description in claims 1-2, 5-11, 13-16 and 18-20 is an abstract idea. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because, when analyzed under prong two of step 2A (MPEP 2106.04II), the additional elements such as “a memory storing executable instructions”, “a processing device executing the instructions wherein the instructions cause the processing device to (perform steps)”, “a digital media file”, “third-party device (claim 8)” and “the electronic device (claim 13)” and “module (claim 14)” represent the use of a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea and/or does no more than generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. Claims 2, 5-8 and 15 further recites “creation/generation/training of… media by the generative artificial intelligence, which is recited at a high level of generality as a tool for carrying out the abstract idea, without reciting a particular improvement to the operation of the artificial intelligence, computer or another technology. Claim 20 further recites “scanning device configured to perform a 3D scan…generate the digital media file based on the 3D scan”. The scanning device merely obtains data used in carrying out the abstract idea and does not improve the operation of the scanning device or another technology. Claims 13 and 18 further recite “automatically embed the digital media file with at least one of metadata and digital watermark”. However, the limitations merely append computer-based data processing to the abstract idea and do not recite a particular technological technique for generating or embedding the metadata or watermark, nor an improvement to computer or digital-media technology. Accordingly, these limitations do not integrate the judicial exception into practical application.
When analyzed under step 2B (MPEP 2106.04II), the additional elements, individually and as an ordered combination, do not more than represent the use of a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea and/or does no more than generally link the abstract idea to a particular field of use, they do not provide an improvement to computer functionality, or an improvement to another technology or technical field and, therefore, do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself (MPEP 2106.05(I)(A)(f)&(h)).
Hence, claims 1-2, 5-11, 13-16 and 18-20 are not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claims 1-2, 5-6, 11, 15 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Savage et al. (US 2021/0352369 A1) in in view of Cella et al. (US 2021/0342836 A1).
As per Claims 1, 19, 20
Savage (‘369) discloses
a memory storing executable instructions, see at least paragraph 0022 (memory, which when executed by a processor…perform various functions; computer-readable instructions)
a processing device executing the instructions, see at least paragraph 0022 (memory, which when executed by a processor…perform various functions; computer-readable instructions)
wherein the instructions cause the processing device to, see at least paragraph 0022 (memory, which when executed by a processor…perform various functions; computer-readable instructions; computing device including one or more processors…configured to perform various steps, functions, and/or operations)
receive a digital media file, the digital media file including at least one of: a likeness of a user associated with the distribution recipient and a likeness of a property associated with the distribution recipient, see at least paragraph 0023 (a specific actor may upload images and video footage of his likeness), paragraph 0031 (fee for use of the item of source content in synthesized content; fee may vary based on the nature and/or duration of the user; fee may increase with the amount of time for which the item of source content is being used e.g. utilizing an actor’s likeness in one scene of a movie may cost less than using the likeness throughout the movie)
distribute fees for use of digital media files by a generative artificial intelligence *claim 20, see at least paragraph 0015 (granting permission for their likenesses to be used in approved ways in exchange for compensation), paragraph 0031 (fee for use of the item of source content in synthesized content; fee may vary based on the nature and/or duration of the user; fee may increase with the amount of time for which the item of source content is being used e.g. utilizing an actor’s likeness in one scene of a movie may cost less than using the likeness throughout the movie), paragraph 0027 (deep learning algorithms) and paragraph 0013 (deepfakes)
Savage (‘369) discloses receive a share structure, see at least paragraph 0031 (fee for use of the item of source content in synthesized content; fee may increase if the synthesized content including the item of source content is shared with others), but fails to explicitly disclose distribute a share of the usage fee to the distribution recipient when a usage event is detected, wherein the share for distribution of a usage fee is set by the share structure. Cella (‘836) teaches distribute a share of usage fee to distribution recipient when a usage event is detected, wherein the share for distribution of a usage fee is set by the share structure, see at least paragraph 0507 (wants the likeness of a licensor to appear; smart contract that memorializes an agreement between the individual and a licensee and facilitates the transfer of consideration e.g. money when the parties agree that the individual has performed his or her requirements as put forth in the agreement; smart contract…include an identifier of the athlete, requirements of the individual e.g. to appear in a commercial….and the consideration e.g. a monetary amount; smart contract may define a split between the licensing athlete…the department…teammates; split the funds…60% of the funds are allocated to the student athlete appearing in the commercial; smart contract can transfer the agreed upon amount from an account of the licensee to an account of the athlete and accounts of any other entities that may be allocated a percentage of the funds in the smart contract), paragraph 0352 (given a share of a royalty stack according to a rule). Both Savage and Cella are directed toward allowing a person to control the use of his or her likeness. Therefore, it would be obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing data of the claimed invention to modify Savage’s invention to include distribute a share of usage fee to distribution recipient when a usage event is detected, wherein the share for distribution of a usage fee is set by the share structure. One would have been motivated for the benefit of speeding up the distribution process.
As per Claim 2
Savage (‘369) discloses wherein the usage event an approval of a third-party request to use the digital media file in creation of media by the generative artificial intelligence, see at least paragraph 0015 (granting permission for their likenesses to be used in approved ways in exchange for compensation), paragraph 0009 (receiving a request from a user; the request indicates that the user would like to generate synthesized content from the plurality of items of source content), paragraph 0027 (deep learning algorithms) and paragraph 0013 (deepfakes)
As per Claim 5
Savage (‘369) discloses wherein the usage event is an approval of a third-party request to use the digital media file in creation of new media by the generative artificial intelligence, see at least paragraph 0015 (granting permission for their likenesses to be used in approved ways in exchange for compensation), paragraph 0009 (receiving a request from a user; the request indicates that the user would like to generate synthesized content from the plurality of items of source content), paragraph 0027 (deep learning algorithms) and paragraph 0013 (deepfakes)
Savage (‘369) discloses wherein the usage fee is based, at least in part, on an extent of use of the digital media file in the usage event, see at least paragraph 0015 (granting permission for their likenesses to be used in approved ways in exchange for compensation), paragraph 0009 (receiving a request from a user; the request indicates that the user would like to generate synthesized content from the plurality of items of source content) and paragraph 0031 (fee for use of the item of source content in synthesized content; fee may vary based on the nature and/or duration of the user; fee may increase with the amount of time for which the item of source content is being used e.g. utilizing an actor’s likeness in one scene of a movie may cost less than using the likeness throughout the movie)
As per Claim 6
Savage (‘369) discloses wherein the usage event is an approval of a third-party request to use the digital media file in generation of media by the generative artificial intelligence, see at least paragraph 0015 (granting permission for their likenesses to be used in approved ways in exchange for compensation), paragraph 0009 (receiving a request from a user; the request indicates that the user would like to generate synthesized content from the plurality of items of source content), paragraph 0027 (deep learning algorithms) and paragraph 0013 (deepfakes)
Savage (‘369) discloses wherein the usage fee is based, at least in part, on a first extent of use of the digital media file relative to a second extent of use of other digital media files in the usage event, see at least paragraph 0015 (granting permission for their likenesses to be used in approved ways in exchange for compensation), paragraph 0009 (receiving a request from a user; the request indicates that the user would like to generate synthesized content from the plurality of items of source content) and paragraph 0031 (fee for use of the item of source content in synthesized content; fee may vary based on the nature and/or duration of the user; fee may increase with the amount of time for which the item of source content is being used e.g. utilizing an actor’s likeness in one scene of a movie may cost less than using the likeness throughout the movie)
As per Claim 11
Savage (‘369) discloses determine if the digital media file includes at least one of: a likeness of a user not associated with the distribution recipient and a likeness of a property not associated with the distribution recipient, see at least 0047 (synthesized content may comprise…first individual’s likeness replaced by the second individual’s likeness; item may be replaced with a second item)
As per Claim 15
Savage (‘369) discloses enable the distribution recipient to set permissions that require approval of the distribution recipient before the digital media file is used in at least one of: generation of media by the generative artificial intelligence and publication of the media, wherein the digital media file is used in the generation of the media by the generative artificial intelligence, see at least paragraph 0015 (granting permission for their likenesses to be used in approved ways in exchange for compensation), paragraph 0009 (receiving a request from a user; the request indicates that the user would like to generate synthesized content from the plurality of items of source content) and paragraph 0031 (fee for use of the item of source content in synthesized content; fee may vary based on the nature and/or duration of the user; fee may increase with the amount of time for which the item of source content is being used e.g. utilizing an actor’s likeness in one scene of a movie may cost less than using the likeness throughout the movie), paragraph 0027 (deep learning algorithms) and paragraph 0013 (deepfakes)
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Savage et al. (US 2021/0352369 A1) in in view of Cella et al. (US 2021/0342836 A1), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Mann et al. (US 2021/0287257 A1).
As per Claim 7
Savage (‘369) discloses wherein the usage event is an approval of a third-party request to use the digital media file in generation of media by the generative artificial intelligence, see at least paragraph 0015 (granting permission for their likenesses to be used in approved ways in exchange for compensation), paragraph 0009 (receiving a request from a user; the request indicates that the user would like to generate synthesized content from the plurality of items of source content), paragraph 0027 (deep learning algorithms) and paragraph 0013 (deepfakes)
Savage (‘369) fails to explicitly disclose wherein the usage fee is preset by the distribution recipient. Mann (‘257) teaches usage fee is preset by a distribution recipient, see at least paragraph 0024 (a start may say that his likeness can be used if he receives at least $50,000; likeness may include image data, a digital list of features in any format…or any other digital or other data usable to identify or represent the star). Both Savage and Mann are directed toward allowing a person to control the use of his or her likeness. Therefore, it would be obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing data of the claimed invention to modify Savage’s invention to include usage fee is preset by a distribution recipient. One would have been motivated for the benefit of allowing a person to decide how much fee is required for others to use his or her likeness.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Savage et al. (US 2021/0352369 A1) in in view of Cella et al. (US 2021/0342836 A1), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Munetsugu et al. (US 2003/0110213 A1).
As per Claim 8
Savage (‘369) discloses transmit a fee to a third-party device and assist third-party with the selection of one of the digital media files to use in: training the generative artificial intelligence and generating media by the generative artificial intelligence wherein the third-party device is in communication with the system, see at least paragraph 0015 (provide a generative platform in which users may generate synthesized content by selecting from a library of licensed media items that have been pre-authorized for use in synthesized content; granting permission for their likenesses to be used), paragraph 0027 (deep learning algorithms) and paragraph 0013 (deepfakes), paragraph 0026 (verification system may recommend one or more proposed modifications from which the user may select) and paragraph 0019 (access network may be in communication with one or more user endpoint devices), paragraph 0025 (profiles may be viewable by users of the UE devices) , paragraph 0031 (plurality of profiles, where each profile is associated with one of the items of source content; the profile for an item of source content may also specify a licensing fee for use of the item of source content), but fails to explicitly disclose fees are transmitted in a fee table wherein the fee table includes a plurality of usage fees corresponding to a plurality of digital media files. Munetsugu (‘213) teaches fees are transmitted in a fee table and fee table includes a plurality of usage fees corresponding to a plurality of digital media files, see at least paragraph 0200 (fee table; fee in accordance with the generated usage rule), paragraph 0198 (fee table descries fees for using the respective media contents; the fee table describes fees for each media content) and paragraph 0199 (media contents distribution system). Both Savage and Munetsugu are directed toward distributing media contents. Therefore, it would be obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing data of the claimed invention to modify Savage’s invention to include fees are transmitted in a fee table wherein the fee table includes a plurality of usage fees corresponding to a plurality of digital media files. One would have been motivated for the benefit of allowing digital media to be selected based on fee.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Savage et al. (US 2021/0352369 A1) in in view of Cella et al. (US 2021/0342836 A1) and Munetsugu et al. (US 2003/0110213 A1). as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Quoc (US 2007/0198492 A1).
As per Claim 9
Savage (‘369) fails to explicitly disclose enable a third-party to filter the plurality of digital media files based on their corresponding usage fees. Quoc (‘492) teaches enable a third-party to filter the plurality of digital media files based on their corresponding usage fees, see at least paragraph 0082 (tailor a search based on availability of rights, prices of those rights), paragraph 0082 (filer content file results) and paragraph 0033 (rights and usage of a content file), paragraph 0041 (copyrights and other intellectual property rights of the user’s media files by enabling secure distribution). Both Savage and Quoc are directed toward charging fee for using media files. Therefore, it would be obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing data of the claimed invention to modify Savage’s invention to include enable a third-party to filter the plurality of digital media files based on their corresponding usage fees. One would have been motivated for the benefit of allowing faster selection.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Savage et al. (US 2021/0352369 A1) in in view of Cella et al. (US 2021/0342836 A1), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Mann et al. (US 2021/0287257 A1).
As per Claim 10
Savage (‘369) discloses user associated with the distribution recipient and the property associated with the distribution recipient and generate the digital media file, the digital media file including at least one of the likeness of the user and the likeness of the property, see at least paragraph 0023 (a specific actor may upload images and video footage of his likeness), paragraph 0031 (utilizing an actor’s likeness in one scene of a movie), but fails to explicitly disclose a scanning device configured to perform a 3D scan. Cella (‘836) teaches a scanning device configured to perform a 3D scan, see at least paragraph 0033 (3D printer), paragraph 0610 (3D image scans), paragraph 0125 (scanning…of users). Both Savage and Cella are directed toward allowing a person to control the use of his or her likeness. Therefore, it would be obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing data of the claimed invention to modify Savage’s invention to include a scanning device configured to perform a 3D scan. One would have been motivated for the benefit of allowing dimensions of a physical person or object to be captured.
Savage (‘369) discloses user associated with the distribution recipient and the property associated with the distribution recipient and generate the digital media file, the digital media file including at least one of the likeness of the user and the likeness of the property, see at least paragraph 0023 (a specific actor may upload images and video footage of his likeness), paragraph 0031 (utilizing an actor’s likeness in one scene of a movie), but fails to explicitly disclose perform scan of one of: the user or the property and generate file based on the scan. Mann (‘257) teaches perform scan of one of: the user or the property and generate file based on the scan, see at least paragraph 0093 (scan images of stars or objects; the images may be uploaded to the server), paragraph 0024 (likeness refers to a representation of the star; person A). Both Savage and Mann are directed toward allowing a person to control the use of his or her likeness. Therefore, it would be obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing data of the claimed invention to modify Savage’s invention to include perform scan of one of: the user or the property and generate file based on the scan. One would have been motivated for the benefit of allowing image representation of a person to be scanned and uploaded for later use.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Savage et al. (US 2021/0352369 A1) in in view of Cella et al. (US 2021/0342836 A1), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Tadano (US 2013/0024698 A1) and CARDOHNA et al. (US 2021/0034717 A1).
As per Claim 13
Savage (‘369) discloses wherein the digital media file is received from an electronic device of the distribution recipient wherein the electronic device is in communication with the system, see at least paragraph 0032 (all items of source content that are stored…have been uploaded to the DB with permission from the owners), paragraph 0023 (a specific actor may upload images and video footage of his likeness)
Savage (‘369) discloses embed the digital media file with at least one of metadata and a digital watermark, see at least paragraph 0049 (inserting a watermark into the content), paragraph 0002 (video content), but fails to explicitly disclose the file is embed automatically with the electronic device. Tadano (‘698) teaches embed file automatically with electronic device, see at least paragraph 0162 (digital watermark embedding device; automatically; digital content to be managed was created by embedding the digital watermark), paragraph 0001 (digital content including a file set). Both Savage and Tadano are directed toward embedding watermark into content. Therefore, it would be obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing data of the claimed invention to modify Savage’s invention to include the file is embedded automatically with the electronic device. One would have been motivated for the benefit of speeding up embedding process.
Savage (‘369) discloses a likeness of a user associated with the distribution recipient and embed the digital media file with at least one of metadata and a digital watermark see at least paragraph 0023 (a specific actor may upload images and video footage of his likeness), paragraph 0031 (fee for use of the item of source content in synthesized content; fee may vary based on the nature and/or duration of the user; fee may increase with the amount of time for which the item of source content is being used e.g. utilizing an actor’s likeness in one scene of a movie may cost less than using the likeness throughout the movie), paragraph 0049 (inserting a watermark into the content) and paragraph 0002 (video content), but fails to explicitly disclose wherein the metadata or the digital watermark, when deciphered, identifies at least one of: the distribution recipient, the share structure associated and the usage fee, the metadata, and the digital watermark wherein the metadata in the digital media file when the digital media file is created, the metadata identifying the distribution recipient. CARDOHNHA (‘717) teaches metadata or the digital watermark, when deciphered, identifies at least one of: the distribution recipient, the share structure associated and the usage fee, the metadata, and the digital watermark wherein the metadata in the digital media file when the digital media file is created, the metadata identifying the distribution recipient, see at least paragraph 0018 (image permission… image metadata to identify the image owner; gain permission to use the image and/or the identified person’s likeness), paragraph 0021 (embeds the information into the image files as metadata along with the identified permissions), paragraph 0055 (create means; processor). Both Savage and CARDOHNHA are directed toward allowing a person to control the use of his or her likeness. Therefore, it would be obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing data of the claimed invention to modify Savage’s invention to include metadata or the digital watermark, when deciphered, identifies at least one of: the distribution recipient, the share structure associated and the usage fee, the metadata, and the digital watermark wherein the metadata in the digital media file when the digital media file is created, the metadata identifying the distribution recipient. One would have been motivated for the benefit of increasing security.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Savage et al. (US 2021/0352369 A1) in in view of Cella et al. (US 2021/0342836 A1), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Blankley (US 2005/0043960 A1)
As per Claim 16
Savage (‘369) discloses usage fee, see at least paragraph 0031 (fee for use of the item of source content in synthesized content; fee may increase if the synthesized content including the item of source content is shared with others), but fails to explicitly disclose wherein the fee is a reoccurring fee based on a lease or subscription model. Blankley teaches reoccurring fee based on a lease or subscription model, see at least paragraph 0026 (bill users periodically), paragraph 0031 (online subscription service which pays out royalties), paragraph 0036 (content; collect subscription fees). Both Savage and Blankley are directed toward allowing content to be used for a fee. Therefore, it would be obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing data of the claimed invention to modify Savage’s invention to include reoccurring fee based on a lease or subscription model. One would have been motivated for the benefit of allowing fee to be collected periodically.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Savage et al. (US 2021/0352369 A1) in in view of Cella et al. (US 2021/0342836 A1), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Levy et al. (US 8,250,660 B2).
As pe Claim 18
Savage (‘369) discloses embed the digital media file with a digital watermark, see at least paragraph 0049 (inserting a watermark into the content), paragraph 0002 (video content), but fails to explicitly disclose when extracted, identifies at least one of: the distribution recipient, the share structure associated and the usage fee. Levy (‘660) teaches when extracted, identifies at least one of distribution recipient, the share structure associated and the usage fee, see at least claim 1 of Levy (participant who requires royalty payments for content to be distributed; assigning a unique identifier to the participant; embedding the content with the unique identifier… decodes…the embedding and obtains the identifier during a transaction; performing royalty payment action) claim 5 of Levy (digital watermarking…. determines a percentage of revenue that is attributable to an amount of time the audio or video content undergoes a transaction by utilizing at least the identifier). Both Savage and Levy are directed toward embedding watermark into content. Therefore, it would be obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing data of the claimed invention to modify Savage’s invention to include when extracted, identifies at least one of: the distribution recipient, the share structure associated and the usage fee. One would have been motivated for the benefit of speeding up payment process.
Claim 14 has been searched and reviewed. No prior art has been found that discloses, either expressly or inherently, all the limitations of claim 14, including the limitations of independent claim 1, from which claim 14 depends. Savage (US 2021/0352369 A1) discloses a verification system for determining whether requested uses of source content are authorized based on associated permissions, see at least paragraphs 0023 and 0031. However, Savage does not disclose the additional limitations recited in claim 14. Kosslyn et al. (US 9,715,541 B1) teaches verifying an individual’s contribution and role in a media project, then presenting verified credits on the individual’s profile, see at least Abstract and claims 1-10 of Kossyln. The rest of limitations recited in claim 14, considered as a whole, are not taught by the prior arts found in examiner’s search. Therefore, no rejection under 102/103 is made.
Related But Not Relied Upon
Relevant prior art cited but not applied: O’Donnell (US 2005/0119975 A1) directed to licensing permission to use material created by another and track entities entitled to a share of license fee payments.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHIA-YI LIU whose telephone number is (571)270-1573. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs 9-8 pm.
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, RYAN DONLON can be reached at (571) 270-3602. 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.
/CHIA-YI LIU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3692
