DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
This Office Action is responsive to Applicant’s arguments and request for continued examination of application 18/486,617 (10/13/23) filed on 10/30/25.
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 - 6, 8 - 10, 13, 15 - 18 and 20 - 25 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 - 6, 8 - 10, 13, 15 - 18 and 20 - 25 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., calculating a degree of attribution for the entity using 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 generating first data indicating media content selected for output in association with a user account of a user over a period of time; determining characteristics of the output of the media content, the characteristics indicating at least an entity associated with the media content and how the media content was output in association with the user account over the period of time; determining, based on the characteristics of the output, second data indicating a numeric intent value associated with the user account in relation to the first data; calculating a degree of attribution for the entity using the numeric intent value; generating third data representing an attribution schedule indicating the degree of attribution for the entity; determining that the period of time has lapsed; facilitating a transfer of funds to an entity account associated with the entity using the third data and based on the period of time lapsing; and establishing an electronic communication session, wherein the electronic communication session facilitates at least one of a transfer of additional funds from the user to the entity account or transmission of a message between the user and the entity, which is a fundamental economic principles or practices (outputting media content; attribution; transfer of funds); commercial or legal (outputting media content; attribution; transfer of funds); and managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (generating, determining, calculating, facilitating, establishing).
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 generating first data indicating media content selected for output in association with a user account of a user over a period of time; determining characteristics of the output of the media content, the characteristics indicating at least an entity associated with the media content and how the media content was output in association with the user account over the period of time; determining, based on the characteristics of the output, second data indicating a numeric intent value associated with the user account in relation to the first data; calculating a degree of attribution for the entity using the numeric intent value; generating third data representing an attribution schedule indicating the degree of attribution for the entity; determining that the period of time has lapsed; facilitating a transfer of funds to an entity account associated with the entity using the third data and based on the period of time lapsing; and establishing an electronic communication session, wherein the electronic communication session facilitates at least one of a transfer of additional funds from the user to the entity account or transmission of a message between the user and the entity.
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 generating first data indicating media content selected for output in association with a user account of a user over a period of time; determining characteristics of the output of the media content, the characteristics indicating at least an entity associated with the media content and how the media content was output in association with the user account over the period of time; determining, based on the characteristics of the output, second data indicating a numeric intent value associated with the user account in relation to the first data; calculating a degree of attribution for the entity using the numeric intent value; generating third data representing an attribution schedule indicating the degree of attribution for the entity; determining that the period of time has lapsed; facilitating a transfer of funds to an entity account associated with the entity using the third data and based on the period of time lapsing; and establishing an electronic communication session, wherein the electronic communication session facilitates at least one of a transfer of additional funds from the user to the entity account or transmission of a message between the user and the entity.
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 of the “electronic communication session” being “between a user device of the user and a computing device associated with the entity via a communication interface of the user device” and wherein the electronic communication session facilitates “via user input to the communication interface”. 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 processing (e.g., “generating”, “determining”, “calculating”, “establishing”, etc. step(s) as claimed); and (b) data receipt/ transmission (e.g., “facilitating”, 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 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”.
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 processing (e.g., “generating”, “determining”, “calculating”, “establishing”, etc. step(s) as claimed); and (b) data receipt/ transmission (e.g., “facilitating”, 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 processing (e.g., “generating”, “determining”, “calculating”, “establishing”, etc. step(s) as claimed); and (b) data receipt/ transmission (e.g., “facilitating”, etc. step(s) as claimed) are well understood, routine and conventional. 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). 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). 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 2 - 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, 18, 20 and 24 - 25 are rejected as ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101 based on a rationale similar to the claims from which they depend.
Response to Arguments
101
Applicant's arguments filed 10/30/25 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).
Mathematical Concepts
The claims recite a mathematical formula or calculation (e.g., calculating a degree of attribution for the entity using 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 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 (outputting media content; attribution; 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 selected for output”) based on “an attribution schedule indicating the degree of attribution for the entity”.
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).
Mental Processes
The claimed invention is directed to mental processes. The claimed invention encompasses observations, evaluations, judgements and opinions (e.g., “processing ….. a plurality of multimodal data associated with a first fungible asset;” and “generating ….. at least an acquisition outline for a second fungible asset using the prediction module, wherein the acquisition outline comprises a purchase schedule of a plan for fungible asset procurement;”) 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 - 6, 8 - 10, 13, 15 - 18 and 20 - 25 suggest the steps or acts are performed on a computer (i.e., “by a processor of a streaming service platform” in method claims 1 - 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 - 25; “one or more non-transitory computer-readable media” and “one or more processors” in one or more non-transitory computer-readable media claims 17 - 18 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).
NOTE: On pgs. 11 - 12 of applicant’s arguments/ remarks as filed 10/30/25, applicant suggests the “Contrary to applicant’s arguments …..” language makes it unclear what argument’s the examiner is responding to. All the examiner remarks noted above are responsive to applicant’s continued argument that the claimed invention does not recite an abstract idea (e.g., See pg. 11 of applicant’s arguments/ remarks as filed 10/30/25 which states, “As in the last Response, Applicant does not concede that the claims recite an abstract idea …..”). For clarity, the language “Contrary to applicant’s arguments” has been deleted.
(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. 13 of applicant’s arguments/ remarks as filed 10/30/25.; “technical improvement in the field of streaming content delivery”. See pg. 15 of applicant’s arguments/ remarks as filed 10/30/25.); 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. 17 of applicant’s arguments/ remarks as filed 10/30/25). 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., “facilitating, by the processor of the streaming service platform, a transfer of funds to an entity account associated with the entity using the third data and based on the period of time lapsing”; and “….. an electronic communication session between a user device of the user and a computing device associated with the entity via a communication interface of the user device, wherein the electronic communication session facilitates, via user input to the communication interface, at least one of a transfer of additional funds from the user to the entity account or transmission of a message between the user and the entity.” as claimed). The role of the device is insignificant and nominally or tangentially related to the claimed invention (e.g., “establishing, by the processor of the streaming service platform, an electronic communication session between a user device of the user and a computing device associated with the entity via a communication interface of the user device, wherein the electronic communication session facilitates, via user input to the communication interface, at least one of a transfer of additional funds from the user to the entity account or transmission of a message between the user and the entity.”). NOTE: The claimed invention is exclusively from the perspective of the “streaming service platform”. The “streaming service platform” is only nominally or tangentially related to the limitation as the limitation relates to an “electronic communication session” that occurs between other, unclaimed entities (i.e., Human operators (e.g., “user”, “entity”) and their respective devices (e.g., “user device”, “computing device”).
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., “facilitating, by the processor of the streaming service platform, a transfer of funds to an entity account associated with the entity using the third data and based on the period of time lapsing”; and “wherein the electronic communication session facilitates, via user input to the communication interface, at least one of a transfer of additional funds from the user to the entity account or transmission of a message between the user and the entity.”); analyzing it (e.g., “generating, by a processor of a streaming service platform, first data indicating media content selected for output in association with a user account of a user over a period of time; determining, by the processor of the streaming service platform, characteristics of the output of the media content, the characteristics indicating at least an entity associated with the media content and how the media content was output in association with the user account over the period of time; determining, by the processor of the streaming service platform and based on the characteristics of the output, second data indicating a numeric intent value associated with the user account in relation to the first data; calculating, by the processor of the streaming service platform, a degree of attribution for the entity using the numeric intent value; generating, by the processor of the streaming service platform, third data representing an attribution schedule indicating the degree of attribution for the entity; determining, by the processor of the streaming service platform, that the period of time has lapsed”; and “establishing, by the processor of the streaming service platform, an electronic communication session between a user device of the user and a computing device associated with the entity via a communication interface of the user device”.); 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).
With respect to applicant’s arguments regarding parent application 17/964,712, applicant is reminded that each application is examined on it’s own merits.
(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”.
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 processing (e.g., “generating”, “determining”, “calculating”, “establishing”, etc. step(s) as claimed); and (b) data receipt/ transmission (e.g., “facilitating”, 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 processing (e.g., “generating”, “determining”, “calculating”, “establishing”, etc. step(s) as claimed); and (b) data receipt/ transmission (e.g., “facilitating”, etc. step(s) as claimed) are well understood, routine and conventional. 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). 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). 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 2 - 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, 18, 20 and 24 - 25 are rejected as ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101 based on a rationale similar to the claims from which they depend.
With respect to applicant’s arguments regarding parent application 17/964,712, applicant is reminded that each application is examined on it’s own merits.
(4)Applicant argues Bascom or that there is a “non-conventional and non-generic arrangement”.
Regarding applicant’s Bascom arguments, an important aspect of the courts finding with respect to the inventive concept in Bascom was that it was a “non-conventional non-generic arrangement of known conventional, pieces” (i.e., In contrast to the “then-known filtering tools”, Bascom’s claimed invention installed filters at the ISP server.). Applicant’s claimed invention is not comparable to Bascom.
First, applicant’s claimed invention is well-understood, routine conventional. As noted above, applicant’s specification as filed 10/13/23 does not provide any indication that the “streaming service platform” is anything other than a generic, off-the-shelf computer component. 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 processing (e.g., “generating”, “determining”, “calculating”, “establishing”, etc. step(s) as claimed); and (b) data receipt/ transmission (e.g., “facilitating”, 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 processing (e.g., “generating”, “determining”, “calculating”, “establishing”, etc. step(s) as claimed); and (b) data receipt/ transmission (e.g., “facilitating”, etc. step(s) as claimed) are well understood, routine and conventional. 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). 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).
Second, applicant’s claimed invention does not provide “non-conventional non-generic arrangement of known conventional, pieces.” As noted above, applicant’s claimed invention does not provide a “distributed” architecture that renders to the claimed invention “unconventional”. Applicant’s claimed invention is directed to a conventional computer network. Furthermore, all processing and decision making in the claimed invention is done exclusively by a single computer (i.e. “streaming service platform”). In other words, there is no real distribution of tasks in the claimed invention.
Conclusion
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