DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
This Office Action is responsive to Applicant’s arguments and request for reconsideration of application 18/486,617 (10/13/23) filed on 04/14/26.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 9 and 17 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 1, 9 and 17 recite, “wherein a percentage to be paid to the entity per the updated attribution schedule is based on the numeric intent value”
This should -- wherein a percentage [[MISSING WORDS of royalties ???]] to be paid to the entity per the updated attribution schedule is based on the numeric intent value – or something similar?
Words missing. Percentage of what (e.g., “of royalties”)?
Appropriate correction is required.
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, 3 - 6, 8 - 10, 13, 15 - 17 and 20 - 27 is/ are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
ALICE/ MAYO: TWO-PART ANALYSIS
2A. First, a determination whether the claim is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., abstract idea).
Prong 1: A determination whether the claim recites a judicial exception (i.e., abstract idea).
Groupings of abstract ideas enumerated in the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance.
Mathematical concepts- mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations.
Certain methods of organizing human activity- fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions).
Mental processes- concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion).
Prong 2: A determination whether the judicial exception (i.e., abstract idea) is integrated into a practical application.
Considerations indicative of integration into a practical application enumerated in the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance.
Improvement to the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to any other technology or technical field
Applying or using a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition
Applying the judicial exception with, or by use of a particular machine.
Effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing
Applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception
Considerations that are not indicative of integration into a practical application enumerated in the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance.
Merely reciting the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea.
Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception.
Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
2B. Second, a determination whether the claim provides an inventive concept (i.e., Whether the claim(s) include additional elements, or combinations of elements, that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (i.e., abstract idea)).
Considerations indicative of an inventive concept (aka “significantly more”) enumerated in the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance.
Improvement to the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to any other technology or technical field
Applying the judicial exception with, or by use of a particular machine.
Effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing
Applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception NOTE: The only consideration that does not overlap with the considerations indicative of integration into a practical application associated with step 2A: Prong 2.
Considerations that are not indicative of an inventive concept (aka “significantly more”) enumerated in the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance.
Merely reciting the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea.
Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception.
Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
Simply appending well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception. NOTE: The only consideration that does not overlap with the considerations that are not indicative of integration into a practical application associated with step 2A: Prong 2.
See also, 2010 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance; Federal Register; Vol. 84, No. 4; Monday, January 7, 2019
Claims 1, 3 - 6, 8 - 10, 13, 15 - 17 and 20 - 27 is/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.
1: Statutory Category
Applicant’s claimed invention, as described in independent claim 1, is/are directed to a process (i.e. a method).
2(A): The claim(s) are directed to a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea).
PRONG 1: The claim(s) recite a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea).
Mathematical Concepts
The claims recite a mathematical formula or calculation (e.g., “percentages of royalties to be paid to individuals of the plurality of entities”; “a percentage to be paid to the entity per the updated attribution schedule is based on the numeric intent value”). Thus, the claim recites a mathematical concept. Thus, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity
The claim as a whole recites a method of organizing human activity. The claimed invention is involves providing a media content item of a plurality of media content items, wherein the media content item is associated with an entity; receiving an indication of one or more user interactions associated with output of the media content item over a period of time; determining, based on the one or more user interactions, a numeric intent value associated with a level of user interest in the media content item;
updating an attribution schedule to an updated attribution schedule, wherein the updated attribution schedule indicates: a plurality of entities associated with outputted media content items of the plurality of media content items, and corresponding percentages of royalties to be paid to individuals of the plurality of entities upon lapse of the period of time, wherein a percentage to be paid to the entity per the updated attribution schedule is based on the numeric intent value, and wherein updating the attribution schedule to the updated attribution schedule includes altering previous percentages corresponding to one or more entities of the plurality of entities;
determining that the period of time has lapsed; and responsive to determining that the period of time has lapsed, facilitating a transfer of funds to an entity account associated with the entity based at least in part on the updated attribution schedule and at least one other attribution schedule of another user, which is a fundamental economic principles or practices (output a media content item; attribution/ royalties; transfer of funds); commercial or legal (output a media content item; attribution/ royalties; transfer of funds); and managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (providing, receiving, determining, updating, altering, facilitating ….. a transfer).
The mere nominal recitation of a “processor of a streaming service platform” does not take the claim out of the method of organizing human activity grouping. Thus, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Mental Processes
The claim recites limitations directed to involves providing a media content item of a plurality of media content items, wherein the media content item is associated with an entity; receiving an indication of one or more user interactions associated with output of the media content item over a period of time; determining, based on the one or more user interactions, a numeric intent value associated with a level of user interest in the media content item; updating an attribution schedule to an updated attribution schedule, wherein the updated attribution schedule indicates: a plurality of entities associated with outputted media content items of the plurality of media content items, and corresponding percentages of royalties to be paid to individuals of the plurality of entities upon lapse of the period of time, wherein a percentage to be paid to the entity per the updated attribution schedule is based on the numeric intent value, and wherein updating the attribution schedule to the updated attribution schedule includes altering previous percentages corresponding to one or more entities of the plurality of entities;
determining that the period of time has lapsed; and responsive to determining that the period of time has lapsed, facilitating a transfer of funds to an entity account associated with the entity based at least in part on the updated attribution schedule and at least one other attribution schedule of another user.
The limitation(s), as drafted, is/are a process that, under it’s broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation(s) in the mind. That is, other than reciting a “processor of a streaming service platform”, nothing in the claim element precludes the steps from practically being performed in the mind. In other words, the claim encompasses the user manually providing a media content item of a plurality of media content items, wherein the media content item is associated with an entity; receiving an indication of one or more user interactions associated with output of the media content item over a period of time; determining, based on the one or more user interactions, a numeric intent value associated with a level of user interest in the media content item; updating an attribution schedule to an updated attribution schedule, wherein the updated attribution schedule indicates: a plurality of entities associated with outputted media content items of the plurality of media content items, and corresponding percentages of royalties to be paid to individuals of the plurality of entities upon lapse of the period of time, wherein a percentage to be paid to the entity per the updated attribution schedule is based on the numeric intent value, and wherein updating the attribution schedule to the updated attribution schedule includes altering previous percentages corresponding to one or more entities of the plurality of entities; determining that the period of time has lapsed; and responsive to determining that the period of time has lapsed, facilitating a transfer of funds to an entity account associated with the entity based at least in part on the updated attribution schedule and at least one other attribution schedule of another user.
The mere nominal recitation of a “processor of a streaming service platform” does not take the claim limitation out of the mental processes grouping. This/these limitation(s) recite a mental process. Thus, the claim recites an abstract idea.
PRONG 2: The judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea) is not integrated into a practical application.
The claim recites the combination of additional elements of a “processor of a streaming service platform” performing the positively recited steps or acts. The claim recites the combination of additional elements the “providing” step being “to a user device of a user associated with a user account”. The additional element(s) is/ are recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as a generic computer performing the generic computer functions of (a) data receipt/ transmission (e.g., “providing”, “receiving”, “facilitating ….. a transfer”, etc. step(s) as claimed); and (b) data processing (e.g., “determining”, “updating”, “altering”, etc. step(s) as claimed)). The additional element(s) is/ are recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as general means of gathering media content item data), and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The claim is recited at a high level of generality, and merely automates the step(s). Accordingly, the additional element(s) does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limitations on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. NOTE: (a) The claim is exclusively from the perspective of the “processor of a streaming service platform”. (b) Although a “user device of a user associated with a user account” is referenced in the claim, the claimed invention is not from the perspective of a “user device of a user associated with a user account” and the “user device of a user associated with a user account” does not perform any of the positively recited steps or acts required of the claimed invention. The “user device of a user associated with a user account” merely interacts with the entity (i.e., “processor of a streaming service platform”) from whose perspective the invention is actually claimed.
Since the claim(s) recite a judicial exception and fails to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, the claim(s) is/are “directed to” the judicial exception. Thus, the claim(s) must be reviewed under the second step of the Alice/ Mayo analysis to determine whether the abstract idea has been applied in an eligible manner.
2(B): The claims do not provide an inventive concept (i.e., The claim(s) do not include additional elements, or combinations of elements, that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (i.e., abstract idea)).
As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional element(s) in the claim amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
Furthermore, the additional element(s) under STEP 2A Prong 2 have been evaluated in STEP 2B to determine if it is more than what is well-understood, routine conventional activity in the field. Applicant’s specification as filed 10/13/23 does not provide any indication that the technology is anything other than generic, off-the-shelf computer components. Furthermore, the prosecution history of the instant application provides Morain, US Pub. No 2004/0199527; Kurylko, 2021/0158317; Hatcher, US Pub. No. 2021/0272222; and Church, US 2023/0252495 operating in a similar environment, suggesting performing tasks such as (a) data receipt/ transmission (e.g., “providing”, “receiving”, “facilitating ….. a transfer”, etc. step(s) as claimed); and (b) data processing (e.g., “determining”, “updating”, “altering”, etc. step(s) as claimed) are well understood, routine and conventional. Furthermore, the courts have recognized that computer functions or tasks analogous to those claimed by applicant such as (a) data receipt/ transmission (e.g., “providing”, “receiving”, “facilitating ….. a transfer”, etc. step(s) as claimed); and (b) data processing (e.g., “determining”, “updating”, “altering”, etc. step(s) as claimed) are well understood, routine and conventional. Symantec, TLI, OIP Techs and buySAFE court decisions cited in MPEP § 2106.05(D) (ii) indicate that mere collection or receipt of data over a network is a well-understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as here). Flook, Bancorp court decisions cited in MPEP § 2106.05(D) (ii) indicate performing repetitive calculations is a well-understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as here). Accordingly, a conclusion that the additional elements are well-understood, routine, conventional activity is supported under Berkheimer.
For these reasons, there is no inventive concept in the claim, and thus the claim is ineligible.
Dependent claims 3 - 6, 8 and 21 - 23 are rejected as ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101 based on a rationale similar to the claims from which they depend.
Alice Corp. also establishes that the same analysis should be used for all categories of claims (e.g., product and process claims). Therefore, independent streaming service platform claim 9 and independent one or more non-transitory computer-readable media claim 17 is/are also rejected as ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101 for substantially the same reasons as the method claims. The component(s) (e.g., “one or more processors”; “non-transitory computer-readable media”) described in independent streaming service platform claim 9 and the component(s) (e.g., “one or more non-transitory computer-readable media”, “one or more processors”) described in independent one or more non-transitory computer-readable media claim 17, add nothing of substance to the underlying abstract idea. At best, the product(s) (streaming service platform; one or more non-transitory computer-readable media) recited in the claim(s) are merely providing an environment to implement the abstract idea.
Dependent claims 10, 13, 15 - 16, 20 and 24 - 27 are rejected as ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101 based on a rationale similar to the claims from which they depend.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1, 9 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 9 and 17 recite, “wherein updating the attribution schedule to the updated attribution schedule includes altering previous percentages corresponding to one or more entities of the plurality of entities”. It is unclear where support may be found for this limitation in applicant’s specification as filed 10/13/23.
Response to Arguments
101
Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
(1)Applicant argues the claimed invention is not directed to a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea).
The claim(s) recite a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea).
Mathematical Concepts
The claimed invention is directed to mathematical concepts.
The mathematical concepts grouping is defined as mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations. The claimed invention encompasses mathematical concepts because it involves organizing information and manipulating information through mathematical correlations (e.g., “percentages of royalties to be paid to individuals of the plurality of entities”; “a percentage to be paid to the entity per the updated attribution schedule is based on the numeric intent value”).
With respect to Example 48: Applicant argues the claimed invention is similar to Example 48, claim 2 which was found eligible. The facts associated with the claimed invention are more aligned with Example 48, claim 1 from the July 2024 Subject Matter Eligibility Examples which were found to be ineligible. The “percentages of royalties to be paid to individuals of the plurality of entities” and “a percentage to be paid to the entity per the updated attribution schedule” are mathematical concepts similar to the mathematical concepts found in Example 48, claim 1 (i.e., “mathematical operations using STFT”). Percentages are a mathematical concept and calculation. The “attribution schedule”/ “updated attribution schedule” involves changing (i.e., “altering”) the percentages.
Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity
The claimed invention is directed to certain methods of organizing human activity.
Fundamental economic principles or practices relate to the economy and commerce. The claimed invention encompasses fundamental economic principles or practices as it relates to local processing of payments for remotely processed goods (output a media content item; attribution/ royalties; transfer of funds). In other words, the claimed invention is directed to processing a payment (e.g., “facilitating a transfer of funds to an entity account”) for goods (e.g., “media content item”) as influenced by factors such as “one or more user interactions associated with output of the media content item over a period of time” and “level of user interest in the media content item”.
The claimed invention encompasses commercial or legal interactions. The claimed invention relates to local processing of payments for remotely processed goods (outputting media content; attribution; transfer of funds). Local processing of payments for remotely processed goods, in the instant scenario, pertains to agreements in the form of “contracts”, “legal obligations”, “sales activities or behaviors” and “business relations”.
The claimed invention encompasses managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions (e.g., generating, determining, calculating, facilitating, etc.).
See also, MPEP §2106.04(a)(2)(II).
With respect to applicant’s argument that the claimed invention does not involve “local processing of payments for remotely processed goods”, the examiner disagrees. The “transfer of funds to an entity account” relates directly to the “attribution schedule”/ “royalties to be paid” described in the claim. These claimed features are akin to the “local processing of payments”. The “media content item” is provided “to a user device of user associated with a user account”. These claimed features are akin to a “remotely processed goods” (or services). Furthermore, applicant’s own remarks during the prosecution history appear to support this fact. For example, applicant suggests the claimed invention addresses “tracking royalties for content served over the web”. See pg. 15 of applicant’s arguments/ remarks (04/14/26).
With respect to applicant’s argument that the claimed invention is “necessarily rooted in computer technology”, the examiner disagrees. The “attribution” or “royalties” to which the claimed invention is directed are abstract in nature. The “attribution”/ “royalties” relate to the types of agreements that are common business practices in industries such as media and entertainment.
Mental Processes
The claimed invention is directed to mental processes.
The claimed invention encompasses observations, evaluations, judgements and opinions (e.g., “determining, ….. based on the one or more user interactions, a numeric intent value associated with a level of user interest in the media content item;
updating ….. an attribution schedule to an updated attribution schedule,
wherein the updated attribution schedule indicates: a plurality of entities associated with outputted media content items of the plurality of media content items, and
corresponding percentages of royalties to be paid to individuals of the plurality of entities upon lapse of the period of time, wherein a percentage to be paid to the entity per the updated attribution schedule is based on the numeric intent value, and
wherein updating the attribution schedule to the updated attribution schedule includes altering previous percentages corresponding to one or more entities of the plurality of entities; determining …. that the period of time has lapsed;”) which are examples of mental processes.
The courts do not distinguish between mental processes that are performed entirely in the human mind and mental processes that require a human to use a physical aid. Similarly, the courts do not distinguish between claims that recite mental processes performed by humans and claims that recite mental processes performed on a computer. Although claims 1, 3 - 6, 8 - 10, 13, 15 - 17 and 20 - 27 suggest the steps or acts are performed on a computer (i.e., “by a processor of a streaming service platform” in method claims 1 , 3 - 6, 8 and 21 - 23; “streaming service platform” comprising “one or more processors” and “non-transitory computer-readable media” in streaming service platform claims 9 - 10, 13, 15 - 16 and 24 - 27; “one or more non-transitory computer-readable media” and “one or more processors” in one or more non-transitory computer-readable media claims 17 and 20), nothing forecloses applicant’s claimed invention from being performed by a human and thus applicant’s claimed invention is still directed to a mental process.
See also, MPEP §2106.04(a)(2)(III).
(2)Applicant argues the judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea) is integrated into a practical application.
Applicant suggests the claimed invention presents a “practical application” because it provides (a) improvements in the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field (e.g., “technical improvements to automatic distribution of royalties to the artists and/ or publishers who provide media content in a streaming service platform”. See pg. 17 of applicant’s arguments/ remarks as filed 04/14/26.); and provides (b) a technical solution to a technical problem (e.g., “The techniques described herein can solve the problems in the conventional royalty-attribution systems by "generating detailed and time- sensitive data indicating not just that a user interacted with given content but characteristics of that interaction.” See pg. 23 of applicant’s arguments/ remarks as filed 04/14/26). Examiner disagrees.
Applicant’s arguments suggesting the claimed invention provides improvements in the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field; and provides a technical solution to a technical problem suggests the applicant believes the technical aspects of the invention are substantial. There exists alternative perspectives however.
As noted above, local processing of payments for remotely processed goods (i.e., outputting media content; attribution; transfer of funds) is directed to the underlying abstract idea, not the functioning of the computer itself. What applicant is really arguing is the use of a computer as a tool or the benefits of automation itself.
Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception is not
not indicative of integration into a practical application. See also, MPEP § 2106.05(f). Merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea; and mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer are not indicative of integration into a practical application. See also, MPEP §2106.05(f).
The role of the device is limited to necessary data gathering and outputting (e.g., “providing ….. a media content item of a plurality of media content items, wherein the media content item is associated with an entity”; “receiving ….. an indication of one or more user interactions associated with output of the media content item over a period of time”; and “responsive to determining that the period of time has lapsed, facilitating ….. a transfer of funds to an entity account associated with the entity based at least in part on the updated attribution schedule and at least one other attribution schedule of another user.” as claimed).
Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception is not indicative of integration into a practical application. See also, MPEP §2106.05 (g).
Collecting information (e.g., “providing ….. a media content item of a plurality of media content items, wherein the media content item is associated with an entity”; “receiving ….. an indication of one or more user interactions associated with output of the media content item over a period of time”; and “responsive to determining that the period of time has lapsed, facilitating ….. a transfer of funds to an entity account associated with the entity based at least in part on the updated attribution schedule and at least one other attribution schedule of another user.”); analyzing it (e.g., “determining, ….. based on the one or more user interactions, a numeric intent value associated with a level of user interest in the media content item; updating ….. an attribution schedule to an updated attribution schedule, wherein the updated attribution schedule indicates:
a plurality of entities associated with outputted media content items of the plurality of media content items, and corresponding percentages of royalties to be paid to individuals of the plurality of entities upon lapse of the period of time, wherein a percentage to be paid to the entity per the updated attribution schedule is based on the numeric intent value, and wherein updating the attribution schedule to the updated attribution schedule includes altering previous percentages corresponding to one or more entities of the plurality of entities; determining ….. that the period of time has lapsed;”); and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis merely indicates a field of use or technical environment in which to apply the judicial exception.
Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use is not indicative of integration into a practical application. See also, MPEP §2106.05 (h).
It is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., “Network burden is reduced via use of metadata.”; “Aggregating attribution schedules of multiple users over a particular time period allows for, at once, individuated profiles of users' listening patterns and combined payments to artists based on those individuated profiles, thus minimizing funds transfers while maintaining individual users' preference data.”; “The dynamism of the system provides flexibility and allows for precision change in royalties based on every interaction …..”; “Further, this dynamism applies not just to individual users, by in the aggregate. “ See pgs. 20 - 21 of applicant’s arguments/ remarks as filed 04/14/26.) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). NOTE: Applicant’s claimed invention (as represented by independent claims 1, 9 and 17), does not reference a “network”, “metadata”, “dynamisms”/ “precision” attributes; and “aggregation” for example. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
With respect to applicant’s arguments regarding parent application 17/964,712 which issued as US Pat. No. 11829971, applicant is reminded that each application is examined on it’s own merits. Furthermore, the facts and subject matter of each respective case differs as supported by the divisional status of the instant application (18/486,617) and the lack of double patenting rejection in the instant application (18/486,617) with respect to parent application 17/964,712 which issued as US Pat. No. 11829971.
(3)Applicant argues the claimed invention provides an inventive concept (i.e., The claim(s) do not include additional elements, or combinations of elements, that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (i.e., abstract idea)). Applicant argues the claimed invention is not “well-understood, routine or conventional”.
Applicant argues the claimed invention is “non-conventional and non-generic”.
As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional element(s) in the claim amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
Furthermore, the additional element(s) under STEP 2A Prong 2 have been evaluated in STEP 2B to determine if it is more than what is well-understood, routine conventional activity in the field. Applicant’s specification as filed 10/13/23 does not provide any indication that the technology is anything other than generic, off-the-shelf computer components, see at least para. [0033] [0034] [0035]. Furthermore, the prosecution history of the instant application provides Morain, US Pub. No 2004/0199527; Kurylko, 2021/0158317; Hatcher, US Pub. No. 2021/0272222; and Church, US 2023/0252495 operating in a similar environment, suggesting performing tasks such as (a) data receipt/ transmission (e.g., “providing”, “receiving”, “facilitating ….. a transfer”, etc. step(s) as claimed); and (b) data processing (e.g., “determining”, “updating”, “altering”, etc. step(s) as claimed) are well understood, routine and conventional. See Morain, at least abstract, [0006] [0008] [0011] [0015] [0016] [0017] [0018] [0019] [0041] [0042] [0043] [0046] [0047]. See Kurylko, at least [0004] [0008] [0011] [0015] [0055] [0066] [0068]. See Hatcher, at least abstract, [0007] [0012] [0052] [0074] [0103] [0128]. See Church, at least abstract, [0009] [0010] [0011] [0052] - [0059]. Furthermore, the courts have recognized that computer functions or tasks analogous to those claimed by applicant such as (a) data receipt/ transmission (e.g., “providing”, “receiving”, “facilitating ….. a transfer”, etc. step(s) as claimed); and (b) data processing (e.g., “determining”, “updating”, “altering”, etc. step(s) as claimed) are well understood, routine and conventional. Symantec, TLI, OIP Techs and buySAFE court decisions cited in MPEP § 2106.05(D) (ii) indicate that mere collection or receipt of data over a network is a well-understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as here). Flook, Bancorp court decisions cited in MPEP § 2106.05(D) (ii) indicate performing repetitive calculations is a well-understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as here). Accordingly, a conclusion that the additional elements are well-understood, routine, conventional activity is supported under Berkheimer.
For these reasons, there is no inventive concept in the claim, and thus the claim is ineligible.
Dependent claims 3 - 6, 8 and 21 - 23 are rejected as ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101 based on a rationale similar to the claims from which they depend.
Alice Corp. also establishes that the same analysis should be used for all categories of claims (e.g., product and process claims). Therefore, independent streaming service platform claim 9 and independent one or more non-transitory computer-readable media claim 17 is/are also rejected as ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101 for substantially the same reasons as the method claims. The component(s) (e.g., “one or more processors”; “non-transitory computer-readable media”) described in independent streaming service platform claim 9 and the component(s) (e.g., “one or more non-transitory computer-readable media”, “one or more processors”) described in independent one or more non-transitory computer-readable media claim 17, add nothing of substance to the underlying abstract idea. At best, the product(s) (streaming service platform; one or more non-transitory computer-readable media) recited in the claim(s) are merely providing an environment to implement the abstract idea.
Dependent claims 10, 13, 15 - 16, 20 and 24 - 27 are rejected as ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101 based on a rationale similar to the claims from which they depend.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SARA C HAMILTON whose telephone number is (571)272-1186. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday, 8-5, EST.
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, Christine Tran can be reached at 571-272-8103. 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.
SARA CHANDLER HAMILTON
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3695
/SARA C HAMILTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3695
Prosecution Insights