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 .
Response to Amendment
This action is in response to the applicant’s communication received on 10/30/2025.
Status of the Claims
This a FINAL Office Action rejection prepared in response to Applicant’s amendments filed on 10/30/2025.
Claims 1-5 and 7-16 are amended.
Claims 17-20 are withdrawn.
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Claim Objections:
Claim 9 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 9, the recited “sending…, a content creator token reference…” on line 5 should be amended to “sending…, the content creator token reference…” as “a content creator token reference” was previously recited on line 3.
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 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an
abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1: Claims 1-8 are directed to a system. Claims 9-16 are directed to a method (i.e., process). Therefore, these claims fall within the four statutory categories of invention, and thus must be further analyzed at Step 2A to determine if the claims are directed to a judicial exception (See MPEP 2106.03, subsection II).
Step 2A Prong One: Claim 9, recites (i.e., sets forth or describes) an abstract idea. More specifically, the following bolded claim elements recite abstract ideas while the non-bolded claim elements recite additional elements according to MPEP 2106.04(a).
A pay-per-view method, comprising:
receiving, by a token management server computer, an account credentials from a content creator;
creating, by the token management server computer, a content creator token reference associated with the account credentials;
sending, by the token management server computer, a content creator token reference to a content delivery network;
receiving, by a content license server computer, a request for a content license key from a content player, wherein the request comprises the content creator token reference, a content player token reference, and a decryption key identifier;
validating, by token management server computer, the content creator token reference;
validating, by token management server computer, the content player token reference;
charging, by a pay-per-view engine on a payment network server computer, the content player or a content consumer associated with the content player token reference;
initiating, by the pay-per-view engine on the payment network server computer, a payment to a content creator based on the content creator token reference;
receiving, by the content license server computer, a token validation response from the token management server computer;
creating, by the content license server computer, a time bound license for content created by the content creator based on the decryption key identifier and token validation response; and
sending, by the content license server computer, the content license key to the content player.
Claim 9, recites (i.e., sets forth or describes) a method for controlling access to content based on payment authorization. The claim achieves this by receiving account credentials from a content creator; generating a token associated with the credentials; sending a reference for the token , receiving a request for a content license including the content creator token reference, a content player token reference and a key; validating both token references; charging the content player or a consumer associated to the content player token reference; initiating the payment to the content creator for the license; receiving a token validation; creating a time bound license based on the key and validation response and sending the content license to the content player. Claim 1 is significantly similar to claim 9. As such claim 1 also recites an abstract idea. The claim under its broadest reasonable interpretation recites limitations grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas (i.e. commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations)).
Step 2A Prong Two: Because the claim recites abstract ideas, the analysis proceeds to
determine whether the claim recites additional elements that recite a practical application of the
abstract ideas. Here, the additional elements of a content license server computer, a token management server computer, a pay-per-view engine, a payment network server computer and a content delivery network merely serve as a tool to perform the abstract idea (MPEP § 2106.05(f)). Therefore, the claim as a whole fail to recite a practical application of the abstract ideas.
Step 2B: Determines whether the claim as a whole amount to significantly more than the exception itself. Evaluating additional elements to determine whether they amount to an inventive concept requires considering them both individually and in combination to ensure that they amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. Here, the additional elements, taken individually and in combination, do not result in the claim as a whole, amounting to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed previously with respect to Step 2A, the additional elements merely serve as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Thus, there is no inventive concept in the claim and thus the claim is not eligible, warranting a rejection for lack of subject matter eligibility and concluding the eligibility analysis.
Dependent Claims: Claims 2-8 and 10-16 have also been analyzed for subject matter
eligibility. However, claims 2-8 and 10-16 also fail to recite patent eligible subject matter for the following reasons:
Claims 2 and 10 recite the following bolded claim elements as abstract ideas while the
non-bolded claim elements recite additional elements according to MPEP 2106.04(a).
sending, by the token management server computer, a validated content creator token reference to the content license server computer; and
sending, by the token management server computer, a validated content player token reference to the content license server computer.
The claim further recites an abstract idea. In other words, it recites limitations grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. The non-bolded additional element of a token management server computer and a content license server computer fail to recite a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea because they merely serve as tools to perform the abstract idea (MPEP §2106.05(f)). Further, the additional elements, taken individually and in combination, do not result in the claim as a whole, amounting to significantly more than the judicial exception. Thus, there is no inventive concept in the claim and thus the claim is not eligible, warranting a rejection for lack of subject matter eligibility and concluding the eligibility analysis.
Claims 3 and 11 recite the following bolded claim elements as abstract ideas while the
non-bolded claim elements recite additional elements according to MPEP 2106.04(a).
receiving, by a pay-per-view engine, token information from the token management server computer;
The claim further recites an abstract idea. In other words, it recites limitations grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. The non-bolded additional element of a token management server and a pay-per-view engine computer fail to recite a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea because they merely serve as tools to perform the abstract idea (MPEP §2106.05(f)). Further, the additional elements, taken individually and in combination, do not result in the claim as a whole, amounting to significantly more than the judicial exception. Thus, there is no inventive concept in the claim and thus the claim is not eligible, warranting a rejection for lack of subject matter eligibility and concluding the eligibility analysis.
Claims 4 recite the following bolded claim elements as abstract ideas while the
non-bolded claim elements recite additional elements according to MPEP 2106.04(a).
the token information comprises: the validated content creator token reference; and the validated content player token reference;
The claim further recites an abstract idea. In other words, it recites limitations grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas.
Claims 5 recites the following bolded claim elements as abstract ideas while the non-bolded claim elements recite additional elements according to MPEP 2106.04(a).
the payment network server computer is to submit a payout to the content creator associated with the content creator token reference.
The non-bolded additional element of a payment network computer fails to recite a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea because it merely serves as a tool to perform the abstract idea (MPEP §2106.05(f)). Further, the additional elements, taken individually and in combination, do not result in the claim as a whole, amounting to significantly more than the judicial exception. Thus, there is no inventive concept in the claim and thus the claim is not eligible, warranting a rejection for lack of subject matter eligibility and concluding the eligibility analysis.
Claim 6 recites the following bolded claim elements as abstract ideas while the non-bolded claim elements recite additional elements according to MPEP 2106.04(a).
the token management server computer is to: send a content creator token reference and a streaming provider token reference to a content delivery network.
The claim further recites an abstract idea. In other words, it recites limitations grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. The non-bolded additional element of a token management server computer and a content delivery network fail to recite a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea because they merely serve as tools to perform the abstract idea (MPEP §2106.05(f)). Further, the additional elements, taken individually and in combination, do not result in the claim as a whole, amounting to significantly more than the judicial exception. Thus, there is no inventive concept in the claim and thus the claim is not eligible, warranting a rejection for lack of subject matter eligibility and concluding the eligibility analysis.
Claims 7 and 15 recite the following bolded claim elements as abstract ideas while the
non-bolded claim elements recite additional elements according to MPEP 2106.04(a).
receiving, by the content license server computer, the request for a content license key from video streaming service, wherein the request comprises the content creator token reference, a streaming provider token reference, the content player token reference, and the decryption key identifier;
sending, by the content license server computer, the content license key to the video streaming service;
charging, by the pay-per-view engine, the video streaming service or a content consumer associated with the content player token reference; and
initiating, by the pay-per-view engine, a charge on a payment network based on the content creator token reference and the streaming provider token reference.
The claim further recites an abstract idea. In other words, it recites limitations grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. The non-bolded additional elements of a content license server computer, a payment network and a pay-per-view engine fail to recite a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea because they merely serve as tools to perform the abstract idea (MPEP §2106.05(f)). Further, the additional elements, taken individually and in combination, do not result in the claim as a whole, amounting to significantly more than the judicial exception. Thus, there is no inventive concept in the claim and thus the claim is not eligible, warranting a rejection for lack of subject matter eligibility and concluding the eligibility analysis.
Claims 8 and 16 recite the following bolded claim elements as abstract ideas while the
non-bolded claim elements recite additional elements according to MPEP 2106.04(a).
submitting, by a payment network server computer, a portion of payout to the content creator and another portion of payout to the video streaming service based on the token information.
The claim further recites an abstract idea. In other words, it recites limitations grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. The non-bolded additional elements of a payment network server computer fails to recite a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea because it merely serve as a tool to perform the abstract idea (MPEP §2106.05(f)). Further, the additional elements, taken individually and in combination, do not result in the claim as a whole, amounting to significantly more than the judicial exception. Thus, there is no inventive concept in the claim and thus the claim is not eligible, warranting a rejection for lack of subject matter eligibility and concluding the eligibility analysis.
Claim 12 recites the following bolded claim elements as abstract ideas while the
non-bolded claim elements recite additional elements according to MPEP 2106.04(a).
receiving, by the pay-per-view engine, a validated content creator token reference;
receiving, by the pay-per-view engine, a validated content player token reference; and
initiating, by the pay-per-view engine on the payment network server computer, the payment to the content creator based on the validated content creator token reference and the validated content player token reference.
The claim further recites an abstract idea. In other words, it recites limitations grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. The non-bolded additional element of a payment network server computer and a pay-per-view engine computer fail to recite a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea because they merely serve as tools to perform the abstract idea (MPEP §2106.05(f)). Further, the additional elements, taken individually and in combination, do not result in the claim as a whole, amounting to significantly more than the judicial exception. Thus, there is no inventive concept in the claim and thus the claim is not eligible, warranting a rejection for lack of subject matter eligibility and concluding the eligibility analysis.
Claim 13 recites the following bolded claim elements as abstract ideas while the
non-bolded claim elements recite additional elements according to MPEP 2106.04(a).
submitting, by a payment network computer, a payout to the content creator based on token information, wherein the token information is associated with account credentials of the content creator.
The claim further recites an abstract idea. In other words, it recites limitations grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. The non-bolded additional element of a payment network computer fails to recite a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea because it merely serves as a tool to perform the abstract idea (MPEP §2106.05(f)). Further, the additional elements, taken individually and in combination, do not result in the claim as a whole, amounting to significantly more than the judicial exception. Thus, there is no inventive concept in the claim and thus the claim is not eligible, warranting a rejection for lack of subject matter eligibility and concluding the eligibility analysis.
Claims 14 recite the following bolded claim elements as abstract ideas while the non-bolded claim elements recite additional elements according to MPEP 2106.04(a).
receiving, by the token management server computer, an account credential associated with a video streaming service;
creating, by the token management server computer, a streaming provider token reference; and
sending, by the token management server computer, the streaming provider token reference to the content delivery network.
The claim further recites an abstract idea. In other words, it recites limitations grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. The non-bolded additional element of a content delivery network and a token management server computer fail to recite a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea because they merely serve as tools to perform the abstract idea (MPEP §2106.05(f)). Further, the additional elements, taken individually and in combination, do not result in the claim as a whole, amounting to significantly more than the judicial exception. Thus, there is no inventive concept in the claim and thus the claim is not eligible, warranting a rejection for lack of subject matter eligibility and concluding the eligibility analysis.
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.
Claims 1-2, 6-7, 9-10 and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gallagher (US 2022/0171832 A1) in view of Wahlgren (EP 4270218 A), in further view of Barber (US 5,930,777).
Regarding claim 1 and 9, Gallagher discloses:
receiving, by a content license server computer, a request for a content license key from a content player, wherein the request comprises the content creator token reference, a content player token reference and a decryption key identifier (Gallagher ¶0064, Returning to FIG. 2A, the generated access token 128 is transmitted to the DRM application 130, of the client device 106 as shown in block 210. The DRM application 130 receives the access token 128, and generates a license request, as shown in blocks 212 and 214. The license request includes key request data, which includes the access token 128, and metadata such as the identifier of the requested content (content ID), the token key ID, the client device ID, and cryptographic data required to authenticate and/or protect the privacy of the license request. In one embodiment, the access token 128 is appended to the license request rather than included with the license request, as that solution does not require changes into popular current application program interfaces. In block 216, the DRM application 130 transmits the generated license request to the ECS 118.)
validating, by the token management server computer, the content player token reference; (¶0065, In block 218, the ECS 118 receives the license request and access token 128. The access token 128 and metadata is then transmitted to the token authenticator/validator 126B, as shown in block 224. The token authenticator/validator 126B receives the metadata and access token 128, and authenticates and validates the token, as shown in block 226. ¶0068, The token 128 is then validated using the content ID, and token ID as shown in block 610.)
receiving, by the content license server computer, a token validation response from the token management server computer; (Gallagher ¶0068, Returning to FIG. 2B, if access token 128 is authenticated and valid, the token authenticator/validator 126B transmits a message to the ECS 118 indicating that the token is authenticated and valid.)
creating, by the content license server computer, a time bound license for content created by the content creator based on the decryption key identifier and token validation response; and (¶0068, The ECS 118 may then generate a license 252 to consume the content identified by the content ID (which includes the keys or other cryptographic information required to retrieve and decrypt the content)… ¶0027, Time-limited (TL) access tokens can be used to encode information that authorizes a client device to access a specific protected content instance (or set of content instances). This access is typically unrestricted within the time span encoded into the token, and after such time span has expired, access rights are revoked or no longer usable to access content.)
sending, by the content license server computer, the content license key to the content player. (¶0068, …provide that license 252 to the DRM application 130 according to the generated token as shown in blocks 238 and 240.)
Regarding the claimed limitation “for…” in “a time bound license for content created by the content creator” consists of language disclosing an intended use, so it is considered but given no patentable weight. (see MPEP 2111.05, MPEP 2114 and authorities cited therein). The reference is provided for the purpose of compact prosecution.
Gallagher further discloses:
a token management server computer (Gallagher ¶0035, The token service 126 may include, for example, a token issuer 126A that generates and issues access token(s) 128 and a token validator 126B, that receives, authenticates, and validates access tokens 128 as described further herein.)
a content license server (Gallagher ¶0035, In some cases, the CDN 100 also permits the users' client device 106 to transmit information to the headend 102 or an entitlement control service (ECS) 118 such as a license entity or service implemented by a license server.)
Gallagher does not disclose, however Wahlgren teaches:
receiving, by a token management server computer, an account credentials from a content creator; and (col 10 lines 2-5, receiving 600, by the server apparatus, a content producer registration request comprising authentication details of the content producer and data related to the content producer; col 10 lines 16-23, The content producer registration request comprises authentication details of the content producer and data related to the content producer. The content producer registration request may comprise details of the content producer, such as a name and other identifying information. The content producer registration request may comprise payment details of the content producer.)
creating, by the token management server computer, a content creator token reference associated with the account credentials; sending, by the token management server computer, a content creator token reference to a content delivery network; (col 10 lines 12-14, transmitting 608, by the server apparatus, a content producer token in response to the authentication request)
validating, by the token management server computer, the content creator token reference; (col 2 lines 55-56, validating, by the server apparatus, the content producer token…)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modify Gallagher’s teaching with Wahlgren’s teaching. One of ordinary skills in the art would have been motivated in order to enforce content control and policies or licenses to protect the content creators.
Further, the claimed limitation “… associated with the account credentials” is non-functional material that does not move to distinguish over prior art.
The combination of Gallagher and Wahlgren do not disclose, however Barber teaches:
charging, by a pay-per-view engine on a payment network server computer, the content player or a content consumer associated with the content player token reference; initiating, by the pay-per-view engine on the payment network server computer, a payment to a content creator based on the content creator token reference; (Barber Col 7 lines 57-63, In deciphering a token, the banker examines it for tampering and obsolescence (a token is issued to be good for only a short time), and then extracts the transaction data it needs for charging the consumer account and crediting a vendor account (usually the vendor who owns the information bearing Web page being accessed).)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modify the combination of Gallagher and Wahlgren with Barber’s teaching. One of ordinary skills in the art would have been motivated in order to provide a platform that charges consumers and pays creators based on verified information to reduce fraud and automate billing processes.
Furthermore, the claimed limitation “… associated with the content player token reference” is non-functional material that does not move to distinguish over prior art.
Regarding claims 2 and 10, the combination of Gallagher, Wahlgren and Barber further discloses:
sending, by the token management server computer, a validated content player token reference to the content license server computer. (Gallagher ¶0065, In block 218, the ECS 118 receives the license request and access token 128. The access token 128 and metadata is then transmitted to the token authenticator/validator 126B, as shown in block 224. The token authenticator/validator 126B receives the metadata and access token 128, and authenticates and validates the token, as shown in block 226.)
sending, by the token management server computer, a validated content creator token reference to the content license server computer; (Wahlgren col 10 lines 12-14, transmitting 608, by the server apparatus, a content producer token in response to the authentication request)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modify the combination of Gallagher, Wahlgren and Barber with Wahlgren’s additional teaching. One of ordinary skills in the art would have been motivated in order to ensure that the right content from the right creator is being licensed.
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Gallagher, Wahlgren and Barber further disclose:
send a content creator token reference and a streaming provider token reference to a content delivery network. (Barber col 10 lines 12-14, transmitting 608, by the server apparatus, a content producer token in response to the authentication request)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modify the combination of Gallagher and Wahlgren with Barber’s teaching. One of ordinary skills in the art would have been motivated in order to provide a platform that charges consumers and pays creators based on verified information to reduce fraud and automate billing processes.
Regarding claims 7 and 15, the combination of Gallagher, Wahlgren and Barber further discloses:
receiving, by the content license server computer, the request for a content license key from a video streaming service, wherein the request comprises the content creator token reference, a streaming provider token reference, the content player token reference, and the decryption key identifier; (Gallagher ¶0024, In such a system, a new access token is typically acquired for every streaming session initiated by the client device, and the access token is validated by the DRM entitlement server for each license request, before fulfilling the request. Gallagher ¶0064, The DRM application 130 receives the access token 128, and generates a license request, as shown in blocks 212 and 214. The license request includes key request data, which includes the access token 128, and metadata such as the identifier of the requested content (content ID), the token key ID, the client device ID, and cryptographic data required to authenticate and/or protect the privacy of the license request… In block 216, the DRM application 130 transmits the generated license request to the ECS 118.)
sending, by the content license server computer, the content license key to the video streaming service; (Gallagher ¶0068, The ECS 118 may then generate a license 252 to consume the content identified by the content ID (which includes the keys or other cryptographic information required to retrieve and decrypt the content), and provide that license 252 to the DRM application 130 according to the generated token as shown in blocks 238 and 240.)
charging, by the pay-per-view engine, the video streaming service or a content consumer associated with the content player token reference; and initiating, by pay-per-view engine, a charge on a payment network based on the content creator token reference and the streaming provider token reference. (Barber Col 7 lines 57-63, In deciphering a token, the banker examines it for tampering and obsolescence (a token is issued to be good for only a short time), and then extracts the transaction data it needs for charging the consumer account and crediting a vendor account (usually the vendor who owns the information bearing Web page being accessed).)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modify the combination of Gallagher, Wahlgren and Barber with Barber’s additional teaching. One of ordinary skills in the art would have been motivated in order to provide a platform that charges consumers and pays creators based on verified information to reduce fraud and automate billing processes.
Further, the claimed limitation “… associated with the content player token reference” is non-functional material that does not move to distinguish over prior art.
Furthermore, the claimed limitation, " wherein the request comprises the content creator token reference, a streaming provider token reference, the content player token reference, and the decryption key identifier " only describe characteristics of the token information, which is stored data, and is not processed or used to carry out any functionality that specifically relies on these particular characteristics. Therefore, this limitation recites non-functional descriptive material and does not serve to differentiate the claims from the prior art.
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Gallagher, Wahlgren and Barber further disclose:
receiving, by the token management server computer, an account credential associated with a video streaming service; (Barber col 10 lines 2-5, receiving 600, by the server apparatus, a content producer registration request comprising authentication details of the content producer and data related to the content producer; col 10 lines 16-23, The content producer registration request comprises authentication details of the content producer and data related to the content producer. The content producer registration request may comprise details of the content producer, such as a name and other identifying information. The content producer registration request may comprise payment details of the content producer.)
creating, by the token management server computer, a streaming provider token reference; and sending, by the token management server computer, the streaming provider token reference to the content delivery network. (Barber col 10 lines 12-14, transmitting 608, by the server apparatus, a content producer token in response to the authentication request)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modify the combination of Gallagher and Wahlgren with Barber’s teaching. One of ordinary skills in the art would have been motivated in order to provide a platform that charges consumers and pays creators based on verified information to reduce fraud and automate billing processes.
Furthermore, the claimed limitation “… associated with a video streaming service” is non-functional material that does not move to distinguish over prior art.
Claims 3-4 and 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gallagher, Wahlgren and Barber as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kim (KR 20230087238 A).
Regarding claims 3 and 11, the combination of Gallagher, Wahlgren and Barber do not disclose, however Kim teaches:
receiving, by a pay-per-view engine, token information from the token management server computer; (Kim Page 1 ¶3, the token management server 20 receives an answer permitting the access agreement after the above process, the system or device to proceed with the payment while transmitting the result to the payment server 40 guide, so that the payment server 40 sends the payment information to the set cost payment channel of the individual who owns the system or device that has requested access, or sends the payment module 41 provided by the payment server 40 This step is to proceed with payment.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modify the combination of Gallagher, Wahlgren and Barber with Kim’s teaching. One of ordinary skills in the art would have been motivated in order to provide information contained in the tokens for payment and order processing.
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Gallagher, Wahlgren, Barber and Kim further discloses:
the token information comprises: the validated content creator token reference; and the validated content player token reference;
The claimed limitation, "…comprises: the validated content creator token reference; and the validated content player token reference" only describe characteristics of the token information, which is stored data, and is not processed or used to carry out any functionality that specifically relies on these particular characteristics. Therefore, this limitation recites non-functional descriptive material and does not serve to differentiate the claims from the prior art.
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Gallagher, Wahlgren, Barber and Kim further discloses:
receiving, by the pay-per-view engine, a validated content creator token reference; receiving, by the pay-per-view engine, a validated content player token reference; and (Gallagher ¶0068, Returning to FIG. 2B, if access token 128 is authenticated and valid, the token authenticator/validator 126B transmits a message to the ECS 118 indicating that the token is authenticated and valid.)
initiating, by the pay-per-view engine on the payment network server computer, the payment to the content creator based on the validated content creator token reference and the validated content player token reference. (Barber Col 7 lines 57-63, In deciphering a token, the banker examines it for tampering and obsolescence (a token is issued to be good for only a short time), and then extracts the transaction data it needs for charging the consumer account and crediting a vendor account (usually the vendor who owns the information bearing Web page being accessed).)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modify the combination of Gallagher, Wahlgren, Barber and Kim with Barber’s additional teaching. One of ordinary skills in the art would have been motivated in order to provide a platform that charges consumers and pays creators based on verified information to reduce fraud and automated billing processes.
Claims 5, 8, 13 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gallagher, Wahlgren and Barber as applied to claim 1, 9, 7 and 15 above, and further in view of Evans (US 2015/0120535 A1).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Gallagher, Wahlgren and Barber do not disclose, however Evans teaches:
submit a payout to the content creator associated with the content creator token reference. (Evans ¶0018, Payment component 130 is configured to receive payments into media distribution system 100 (for example, from advertisers, content owners, and/or the like) and to make payments from media distribution system 100 (for example, to artists, publishers, performance rights organizations, and/or the like). Evans ¶0078, When the streaming media has been delivered to the consumer, in the media distribution system a streaming counter associated with the streaming media file and the consumer is incremented (step 420). The media distribution system calculates the resulting payments due to rightsholders and delivers such payments in due course.) Evans ¶0083, Media distribution system 100 makes a statutory payment to the publisher and performance rights group ( step 640) and a payment to the artist (step 650). See claim 2)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modify the combination of Gallagher, Wahlgren and Barber with Evans' teaching. One of ordinary skills in the art would have been motivated in order to use secure payment networks to submit a payment to the content creator.
Furthermore, the claimed limitation, "…associated with the content creator token reference " is non-functional material that does not move to distinguish over prior art.
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Gallagher, Wahlgren and Barber do not disclose, however Evans teaches:
submitting, by a payment network computer, a payout to the content creator based on token information, wherein the token information is associated with account credentials of the content creator. (Evans ¶0018, Payment component 130 is configured to receive payments into media distribution system 100 (for example, from advertisers, content owners, and/or the like) and to make payments from media distribution system 100 (for example, to artists, publishers, performance rights organizations, and/or the like). Evans ¶0078, When the streaming media has been delivered to the consumer, in the media distribution system a streaming counter associated with the streaming media file and the consumer is incremented (step 420). The media distribution system calculates the resulting payments due to rightsholders and delivers such payments in due course.) Evans ¶0083, Media distribution system 100 makes a statutory payment to the publisher and performance rights group ( step 640) and a payment to the artist (step 650). See claim 2)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modify the combination of Gallagher, Wahlgren and Barber with Evans' teaching. One of ordinary skills in the art would have been motivated in order to use secure payment networks to the content creator’s share which is a technique that has been widely use in this type of systems before the effective filling date of the application.
Furthermore, the claimed limitation, "wherein the token information is associated with account credentials of the content creator" only describe characteristics of the token information, which is stored data, and is not processed or used to carry out any functionality that specifically relies on these particular characteristics. Therefore, this limitation recites non-functional descriptive material and does not serve to differentiate the claims from the prior art.
Regarding claims 8 and 16, the combination of Gallagher, Wahlgren and Barber do not disclose, however Evans teaches:
submitting, by a payment network server computer, a portion of payout to the content creator and another portion of payout to the video streaming service based on the token information. (Evans ¶0018, Payment component 130 is configured to receive payments into media distribution system 100 (for example, from advertisers, content owners, and/or the like) and to make payments from media distribution system 100 (for example, to artists, publishers, performance rights organizations, and/or the like). Evans ¶0078, When the streaming media has been delivered to the consumer, in the media distribution system a streaming counter associated with the streaming media file and the consumer is incremented (step 420). The media distribution system calculates the resulting payments due to rightsholders and delivers such payments in due course.) Evans ¶0083, Media distribution system 100 makes a statutory payment to the publisher and performance rights group ( step 640) and a payment to the artist (step 650). See claim 2)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modify the combination of Gallagher, Wahlgren and Barber with Evans' teaching. One of ordinary skills in the art would have been motivated in order to use secure payment networks to split payments between two or more merchants/creators/providers, which is a technique that has been widely use in this type of systems before the effective filling date of the application.
Response to Arguments
Claim Objections:
Claim objections in the previous non-final action dated 05/27/2025 are withdrawn in light of the claim amendments.
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. § 112 (a) & 35 U.S.C. § 112 (b)
Claim rejections 35 U.S.C. § 112 in the previous non-final action dated 05/27/2025 are withdrawn in light of the claim amendments.
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. § 101
The applicant presents three assertions, i.e., “the claimed invention is not an abstract idea related to organizing human activity and is patent eligible”, “the claimed invention as amended, is integrated into the practical application of encryption of a content file at a content creator server and decryption at a content player discrete servers after validation of each server token reference, tokens being associated with account credentials, at a token management server and creation of time bound license keys content license server for use by the content player” and “the claimed invention recites the additional elements content encryption, licensing, and decryption based on content creator token validation, which enables the content creator to directly distribute pay-per-view content and amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception”. The basis of these assertions are based on the applicant’s argument on pages 10-12.
First, regarding the applicant’s assertion that “the claims are not directed to an abstract idea related to organizing human activity”, the examiner respectfully disagrees. The claim subject matter when analyzed as a whole remain directed to an abstract idea, specifically directed toward certain methods of organizing human activity (i.e., commercial or legal interactions). The recited steps of creating tokens associated with a content creator and a content player, validating these tokens, linking the validation to a tokenized payment flow and issuing a time-bounded license are directed to managing of assets depending upon authorization and payment. The mere recitation of technical terminology or security related step does not render the claim non-abstract. As per MPEP 2106.04(a), in step 2A prong one to determine whether a claim recites an abstract idea, the specific limitations in the claim under examination must be identified and analyzed to determine whether they fall within at least one of the recognize groupings of abstract ideas. If one of the limitations in the examined claim falls within one of the groups, it is reasonable to conclude that the claims recite an abstract idea and the examination continues to step 2A prong two.
Second, regarding the applicant’s assertion that “the claimed invention as amended, is integrated into the practical application of encryption of a content file at a content creator server and decryption at a content player discrete servers after validation of each server token reference, tokens being associated with account credentials, at a token management server and creation of time bound license keys content license server for use by the content player”, the examiner finds it not persuasive and respectfully disagrees. The claim merely implements commercial or legal interactions as described above. The examiner finds that encryption of a content file, token creation and validation, and generation time bound license across multiple servers does not provide any specific improvement to the functioning of the computer or technology. While they may appear technical, they are merely applying the abstract idea of controlling access to content based on payment authorization utilizing generic components. Further, the applying of the abstract idea does not improve upon the computer, servers or any other technology. Therefore, the claim does not recite any technological advancement or inventive integration beyond applying these tools to an abstract concept and thus fail to impose any meaningful limit that would transform the abstract idea into a practical application under the second prong of step 2A of the subject matter eligibility framework.
Finally, regarding the applicant’s assertion that “the claimed invention recites the additional elements content encryption, licensing, and decryption based on content creator token validation, which enables the content creator to directly distribute pay-per-view content and amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception”, are also not persuasive. These elements, individually or in combination, merely represent the use of conventional computer security and authorization techniques to implement a commercial transaction. Further, the additional elements of a content license server computer, a token management server computer, a pay-per-view engine, a payment network server computer and a content delivery network, as recited in the claim, are merely additional elements representing conventional computer technologies employed to apply the underlying abstract idea. To meet the requirements for patent eligibility, the claim must do more than simply apply this abstract idea using generic technological tools. Also, the applicant reliance on the alleged non-obviousness of the claims over prior art is ineffective in the context of 101. Patent eligibility under 101 is separate and distinct from patentability under 103. Therefore the absence of a teaching or obviousness in the prior art does not establish that the claim amounts to significantly more than an abstract idea. The applicant further asserts that the claims provide an improvement “by enabling a content creator to directly license and distribute content”, however this is also unpersuasive. This improvement constitute to an improvement in a commercial arrangement instead of an improvement to a technology. Therefore, the recited claim, does not include any additional features that rise to the level of an inventive concept under step 2B of the subject matter eligibility framework.
As such the claims remain within an abstract idea and rejection is maintained based on the
newly amended claims.
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. § 103
Applicant submits remarks and arguments geared toward the amendments. Examiner has carefully reviewed and considered applicant’s remarks, however they ARE MOOT in light of the fact that they are geared towards the newly added claimed expression in the amendments.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 filed within TWO MONTHS of 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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 action.
The following prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 2014/0081837 A1 to Rybarczyk et al. discloses: A method and apparatus for a payment transaction gateway in a media player are disclosed. Content provided to the media player is sectored into a preview portion and a pay gate portion. The preview portion may be provided free of charge, whereas a user is required to pay a fee or accept a charge to receive the pay gate portion of the content. A payment transaction gateway that is initiated in the media player is used to facilitate the payment of the fee or the acceptance of the charge. The payment transaction gateway allows a user to log in to an account, register for an account, or guest-pay for the content within the confines of the media player and without running another application. Further, a content provider is also enabled to price content based on a minimum price associated with the content.
US 8429081 B1 to Dronamraju et al. discloses: Techniques are provided for securely delivering media data. A requestor is directed to a secure streaming portal after being authenticated. A requesting application contacts the secure streaming portal and requests media data. A configuration header having a key for decrypting the media data is sent to the requesting application using secure communications. The media data is dynamically encrypted using the key and streamed to the requesting application. The requesting application uses the key and decrypts the encrypted media data for consumption.
TW 202220449 A to Yang discloses: The present invention discloses a method of video encryption, including: obtaining an original video and encrypting the original video, to generate an encrypted video and a license key corresponding to the encrypted video, on the first electronic device; sending the encrypted video and the license key to the first video streaming application and a license client respectively; sending the encrypted video to the second video streaming application on the second electronic device via a video streaming server through the first video streaming application, and sending the license key to a license plugin on the second electronic device via a license server through the license client.
US 10,084,759 B2 to Moore discloses: A secure content delivery or access method may include coordination among three devices such as servers—a content management server, a delivery server, and an authorization server. A request for content may originate from an authorization server application, and may involve the application obtaining two digitally signed tokens for the request. The first token may be from the authorization server, and may include a content management server identifier for the requested content. The second token may include two identifiers for the content: the first identifier being the content management server identifier, and the second being a delivery server identifier. The first and second tokens may be signed by the authorization server and content management server, respectively, and may be delivered to the delivery server for validation. Successful validation may result in the delivery server providing a content decryption key for the requested content to a device requesting the content.
EP 4346162 A1 to Stransky-Heilkron discloses: The method of uploading a digital content from a content provider (CP) to a content transmission network (100), such as a CDN, responsible for transmitting contents to user devices (20), comprises the following steps:- transmitting a request for a legitimation token for said digital content from the content provider (CP) to a certificate authority (30);- upon successful authentication of the content provider (CP) by the certificate authority (30), receiving by the content provider (CP) the legitimation token from the certificate authority (30), wherein said legitimation token includes a content tag and an identifier of the content provider (CP) and is digitally signed by the certificate authority (30);- uploading the digital content and the legitimation token from the content provider (CP) to the content transmission network (100.)
US 6718328 B1 to Norris discloses: A system and method for controlling access to content on a network computer. The computer may be a stand-alone single server computer or part of a distributed computer network that is connected to the Internet, intranet, or any other network. The present invention provides a means for a publisher or an owner of content to control access to the content even on a distributed network, i.e., multiple computers storing and providing access to the content. According to the present invention, a user initially receives a token from the publisher or the owner. A content server then receives the token from the user. The content server is configured to recognize requests for content that requires authentication, process the token, and verify the validity of the token. If the token is valid, the server delivers the content to the user. If the token is invalid, the server denies the user access to the content. The present invention provides secured access to restricted contents, such as, for example, pay-per-view websites and movies, and members-only content in an efficient way.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JANICE LOZA whose telephone number is (571)270-3979. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30am - 5:00pm.
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, Patrick McAtee can be reached at (571) 272-7575. 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.
/J.L./Examiner, Art Unit 3698
/STEVEN S KIM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3698