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 .
1. Applicant's amendment filed 04/10/2026 is entered. Claims 1 and 8 are currently amended and claim 6 is canceled. Claims 1-5, 7-13 are pending for examination.
Response to Arguments
2. Applicant's arguments filed 04/10/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
2.1. 35 USC 101 rejection:
Examiner respectfully disagrees with the Applicant's arguments on pages 4-6, " The § 103 rejection of claim 1 should be withdrawn because claim 1 is not directed to an abstract idea as a mere method of organizing human activity. Instead, claim 1 is directed to a method for using technology to improve presentation of media content to a user and for using technology to facilitate an interaction in which a prompt/solicitation for a pay-it-forward transaction is presented in conjunction with the presentation of media content. Even if soliciting a pay-it-forward transaction was, in general, a commercial interaction that is a method of organizing human activity, claim 1 is not directed to this general idea. Claim 1 is directed to using computers to interact with a user in a manner that improves presentation of media content over a computer interface and that facilitates solicitation of a pay-it-forward transaction, through a computer interface, for such media content. The pending claims inherently require electronics because this is how media content is presented to consumers, e.g., through an electronic screen, electronic device, movie screen, etc. The integration of media content presentation and soliciting a pay-it-forward transaction through technology is not merely an application of a general idea, but is a novel technology for integrating media content consumption with solicitation of a pay-it- forward transaction and thereby improving a viewing experience and facilitating the pay-it- forward transaction. Additionally, the claims cannot be performed using pencil and paper because consuming media content inherently requires an electronic device. And presenting a pay-it-forward prompt also inherently requires an electronic device. The pending claims cannot be performed using pencil and paper because they are an improvement to use of an electronic device for consuming media content-in conjunction with presenting a prompt for a pay-it-forward transaction. Additionally, using electronic devices, e.g., smart phones, movie screens, etc., to facilitate a prompt for a pay-it-forward transaction in conjunction with presentation of media content is not "a longstanding or fundamental human practice." Broadband TV, Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 113 F.4th 1359, 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2024) (citations omitted). As already explained herein above, Applicant's pending claims cannot "be performed in the human mind or using a pencil and paper." ", because the claim [see independent claim 1], limitations, " presenting media content to at least one patron in person at a live performance; and presenting an engagement prompt to the at least one live patron in conjunction with presenting media content at the live performance. ", as drafted do not recite any engagement of a device or computer. Further, a media content can be present on paper by one person to another person and the media content can include text, hand-drawn graphics, and photographs and while presenting the media it can be done by prompting a person to engage in accepting the present media content. Therefore, when analyzed per Step 2A, Prong One analysis, these limitations do "set forth" and 'describe" subject matter amounting to managing personal interactions between people and as well social activity falling within, "Certain Methods of organizing Human Activity" groupings of abstract ideas.
Further, when these limitations of claim 1 are further analyzed per Step 2A, Prong two they when viewed individually and in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application (Step 2A, Prong Two: NO), and the claim is directed to the judicial exception. (Step 2A: YES). Step 2A, Prong Two part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception or whether the claim is “directed to” the judicial exception. This evaluation is performed by (1) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception, and (2) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.04(d). Since the limitations of claim 1 do not recite any additional elements, as drafted, the claim, as per Step 2A, prong Two is directed to the abstract idea and also as per Step 2B do not recite an inventive step. Accordingly, the independent claim 1 is not patent eligible.
Finally, the Applicant argues that the claims are patentable in light of our recent decision in DDR Holdings, "Similar to the patent-eligible claims in DDR Holdings, Applicant's pending claims do "involve both a computer and the Internet [, b]ut .. . stand apart because they do not merely recite the performance of some business practice known from the pre-Internet world along with the requirement to perform it on the Internet." Applicant's pending claims are about using technology to do something novel that is possible only through the use of the technology: present media content, and in conjunction with presenting the media content, present a prompt for a pay-it-forward transaction. ". The patent at issue in DDR case dealt with a problem unique to the Internet: Internet users visiting one web site might be interested in viewing products sold on a different web site, but the owners of the first web site did not want to constantly redirect users away from their web site to a different web site. The claimed solution used a series of steps that created a hybrid web page incorporating “look and feel” elements from the host web site with commerce objects from the third-party web site. Id. The patent at issue in DDR provided an Internet-based solution to solve a problem unique to the Internet that (1) did not foreclose other ways of solving the problem, and (2) recited a specific series of steps that resulted in a departure from the routine and conventional sequence of events after the click of a hyperlink advertisement. The patent claims here do not address problems unique to the Internet and instead they recite limitations directed to presenting media content to a patron in person at a live performance, so DDR has no applicability.
Applicant has not filed separate arguments for the dependent claims 2-5, 7-13.
In view of the foregoing, rejection of pending claims 1-5, 7-13 under 35 USC 101 is sustainable and maintained.
2.2. Rejection of claims1 under 35 USC 102 and 35 USC 103:
Examiner respectfully disagrees with the Applicant's arguments on page 6, " Claim 1 requires "presenting media content at a live performance," but Evans discloses only "streamed television - type series or show or movie via an electronic device (e.g., a computer, mobile/smart/cellular phone, television, or any other electronic device in which a user can view an event.)" Video content streamed to an electronic device is not a "live performance" as required by claim 1. Because Evans does not disclose all limitations of claim 1, the § 102 refusal of claim 1 under Evans should be withdrawn."; because, the reference Evans does teach presenting media content in person live performance by streaming it, such as a live sporting event [See Evans para 0040 and Fig3, " ….. The method 400 may further include providing program content with the selected/created/modified content to an audience, audience segments and/or individual users, at 406, such as by the broadcast engine 164 of FIG. 3. The selected/created/modified content may be inserted into program content such that a user viewing an event (e.g., live sporting event, award show, cooking show, fashion show, or any other streamed television-type series or show or movie) via an electronic device (e.g., a computer, mobile/smart/cellular phone, television, or any other electronic device in which a user can view an event) may interact with the content.”]. The claim limitations, as drafted are broad and do not rule out presenting live performance by streaming to live audience.
In view of the foregoing, the rejection of claim 1 as anticipated by reference Evans is sustainable and maintained.
Regarding dependent claim 2, since the Applicant's arguments are on the basis of claim 1, they are not persuasive and the rejection under 35 USC 103 is sustainable and maintained.
Claims 3-5, 7-13:
Examiner respectfully disagrees with the Applicant's arguments on page 7, " Claim 3 depends from claim 1 and is therefore allowable under § 103 for at least the same reasons as for claim 1. Additionally, Fish is not directed to live performances-Fish is directed to consumer engagement over a network connection-so it would not have been obvious to combine Fish with Evans. Additionally, the cited reference in Fish to a "pay-it-forward donation option" (Fish [0131]) is not a reference to a "pay-it-forward prompt" as required in claim 3. The reference in Fish is to a "$10,000 'pay-it-forward' donation option that entrants choose from to benefit their favorite charity or cause" that an entrant may choose from a "showroom." A "showroom," as used in Fish, is a display presentation of prizes that a user may receive if the user performs the requested/agreed-up task. Fish does not disclose prompting a content consumer to make a pay-it-forward transaction as required in claim 3-but instead merely characterizes a prize that is a donation to charity as a "pay-it-forward" prize. Because neither Fish nor Evans discloses an engagement prompt that is a pay-it-forward engagement prompt as required in claim 3, the § 103 rejection of claim 3 under Evans and Fish should be withdrawn.", because first, as analyzed above claim 1 is not allowable and it is subject to rejection under 35 USC 102. Secondly, Applicant's arguments against reference are not persuasive, because claim 3 simply states using a pay-it forward- prompt at the time of presenting a media content during a live event and Fish does teach the concept of using ""pay-it-forward" concept when presenting media content for a live event, such as sporting events, music competitions, film, charities, music and concert promoters etc. [see Evans [paras 0120 and 0141, “ [0120].The digital marketing and revenue generation (DMRG) method and system has myriad uses; it can be used for one and/or simultaneously for a plurality of uses, including but not limited to membership, games, contests, sporting events, ….., entertainment content, and ….. incentive and rewards-programs, …….., talent casting and competitions, ……. skill competitions, user generated video, picture and music competitions, social networks, special occasions, game shows, talk shows, traditional and new media events, ……. to name but a few. Examples of multiple usages of various embodiments listed below exploit the disclosed method and system and achieve one or more of the advantages described herein.”; “[0141] The variations of embodiments listed below may be utilized by myriad corporations, organizations and people, nationally and internationally, by one and/or simultaneously by a plurality of users, including: advertising agencies, ….. traditional media, television, ……, film, charities, music and concert promoters, ……. to name but a few.”". This is line with the description provided in the Applicant's Specification [see para 0007, " A pay-it-forward scheme may be implemented at or in conjunction with a live event, e.g., a movie shown in a theater. For example, in conjunction with the conclusion of a movie or other presentation in a theater, a pay-it-forward prompt (visual, audio, or otherwise) may be presented to viewers/consumers to solicit or prompt a pay-it-forward donation or similar donation/contribution.".]. Evans teaches proving an engagement prompt to the live audiences via electronic devices such as asking for a poll or nominee from the award show but does not teach that the prompt relates to pay-it-forward prompt for a live event, such as, live sporting event, award show, cooking show, fashion show, or any other streamed television-type series or show or movie. Therefore, in view of the teachings of Fish in the same field of endeavor of providing media content for live events including for charity with pay-it- forward options, it would have been obvious to an ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective date of the claimed invention to have modified Evans to include the concept of pay-it-forward option and to include a pay-it-forward prompt, because, as shown in Fish, a live event could have been used for a charity cause.
In view of the foregoing, rejection of claims 3 as being unpatentable over Evans in view of Fis are sustainable and maintained.
Regarding claims 4, 7, 10-13, since the Applicant's arguments relate to the "pay-it-forward" limitations which have been discussed above as being obvious in view of Fish, their rejections as submitted in the Non-Final Rejection mailed 12/12/2025 are sustainable and maintained.
Claims 5, 8 and 9.
Regarding claim 5, Applicant's arguments regarding "Pay-it-forward" limitations are not persuasive in view of Evans and Fish. Further, Examiner disagrees with the Applicant's arguments that Yang does not teach displaying a QR code on a movie screen, because Yang" teachings of displaying a QR code on an electronic screen or a preview screen which is similar to displaying on any screen including a movie screen. Although the claim language at issue is not identical, but is not patentably distinct from each other because the function of displaying a QR code on any type of screen is similar. Therefore, rejection of claim 5 as being unpatentable over Evans in view of Fish in view of Yang is sustainable and maintained.
Claims 8-9:
Applicant’s arguments, see page 9, filed 04/10/2026 with respect to rejection of claim 8 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of claim 8 under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Evans in view of Fish in view of Yang has been withdrawn. Since claim 9 depends from claim 8, its rejection is also withdrawn
2.3: Claim objections have been withdrawn in view of the current amendment to claim 1 and cancellation of claim 6.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
3. 35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-5, 7-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more, when analyzed as per MPEP 2106.
Step 1 analysis:
Claims 1-5, 7-13 are to a process comprising a series of steps, which are statutory (Step 1: Yes).
Step 2A Analysis:
Claim 1 recites:
1. A method, comprising:
presenting media content to at least one patron in person at a live performance; and
presenting an engagement prompt to the at least one live patron in conjunction with presenting media content at the live performance.
Step 2A Prong 1 analysis: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim recites a judicial exception. As explained in MPEP 2106.04, subsection II, a claim “recites” a judicial exception when the judicial exception is “set forth” or “described” in the claim.
Claims 1-5, 7-13 recite abstract idea.
The highlighted limitations, “presenting an engagement prompt to the at least one live patron in conjunction with presenting media content at the live performance. “, under their broadest reasonable interpretation relates to interactions between people for social activities for asking donations or making payments for a charity causefalli8ng within, “Certain Methods of Organizing human activity”, grouping of abstract ideas. Also, the limitations comprising, “ presenting media content to at least one patron in person at a live performance; presenting an engagement prompt to the at least one live patron in conjunction with presenting media content at the live performance.”, as drafted, do not recite use of any device and therefore, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, and therefore can be interpreted as writing a plan on paper to make a presentation to the people, falling within, “Mental Processes”, because they cover concepts performed in the human mind, including observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion using a pen and paper . See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III.
Since claim 1 recites limitations falling under two separate groupings of abstract ideas, the Supreme Court (discussing Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593 (2010)) has treated such claims in the same manner as claims reciting a single judicial exception. Accordingly, limitations considered under Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” and “Mental Processes” for claim 1 are considered together as a single abstract idea for further analysis. (Step 2A, Prong One: YES)
Thus, claim 1 and its dependent claims 1-5, 7-13 recite an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong 2 analysis: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception or whether the claim is “directed to” the judicial exception. This evaluation is performed by (1) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception, and (2) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.04(d).
Claims 1-5, 7-13 The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
Claim 1 recites the additional limitations of presenting media content to at least one patron in person at a live performance, as drafted, can be done manually, for example, a human can present and control slides, videos and audio during a talk in an auditorium or theatre. These limitations do not recite any engagement of a device to present the media and therefore both the limitations comprising “presenting media content to at least one patron in person at a live performance; presenting an engagement prompt to the at least one live patron in conjunction with presenting media content at the live performance. “, can be done manually.
Thus, when viewed individually and in combination, the additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application (Step 2A, Prong Two: NO), and the claim1 is directed to the judicial exception. (Step 2A: YES)
Dependent claims 2-4 mere describe what type is the media content and where it is presented, and what type is the prompt. Claims 5, and 9 recite presenting QR codes on a content, which are generic computer functions with a long-standing practice of using computers to present QR codes on the screen with other content and the claim limitations are not directed to an improvement in generating or presenting QR codes. Claims 7-8 recite as the prompts are presented, which, as recited, can planned and implemented manually and do not reflect any improvement in the computer functioning or any other technical field. Claim 13 recites presenting prompt via a generic computer device smart phone which is recited at a high level of generality and merely amounts to mere data conveying, which is a form of insignificant extra‐solution activity. Claims 10-12 recite providing a live-feed or real time communication to provide the current status of the transactions, which again refers to a long-standing practice of providing real time communication, and the limitations, as recited, do not reflect or recite an improvement over the long-standing process of real-time communicating. The step of filtering data on the basis of geography or time falls within “Mental Processes” and can be done manually.
Even when viewed individually and in combination, the additional elements in claims 1-13 do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application (Step 2A, Prong Two: NO), and the claim is directed to the judicial exception. (Step 2A: YES). Step 2A=Yes. Claims 1-5, 7-13 are directed to abstract ideas.
Step 2B analysis: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole amounts to significantly more than the recited exception i.e., whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, adds an inventive concept to the claim. See MPEP 2106.05.
The claims 1-13 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Since claims are as per Step 2A are directed to an abstract idea, they have to be analyzed per Step 2B, if they recite an inventive step, i.e., the claim recites additional elements or a combination of elements that amount to “Significantly More” than the judicial exception in the claim.
As discussed above with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements in the claims 1-13 amount to no more than mere implementing manual activities or implementing generic computer functions, and instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component, and generally linking the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. The same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e., mere implementing manual activities or implementing generic computer functions, and instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component, and generally linking the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, 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.
The steps of providing live-feed in claims 10-12 is simply appending well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, e.g., a claim to an abstract idea requiring no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known to the industry, as discussed in Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 225, 110 USPQ2d at 1984 (see MPEP § 2106.05(d)).
The additional element found in claim 13 of providing prompt via a smart phone as an insignificant extra-solution activity. However, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A, Prong Two should be re-evaluated in Step 2B. See MPEP 2106.05, subsection I.A. At Step 2B, the evaluation of the insignificant extra-solution activity consideration takes into account whether or not the extra-solution activity is well understood, routine, and conventional in the field. See MPEP 2106.05(g).). The background of the example does not provide any indication that the computer components are anything other than a generic, off the shelf computer component and the Symantec, TLI, OIP Techs, Versata court decisions cited in MPEP 2106.05(d) (ii) indicate that mere data gathering/ transmitting/ outputting/displaying/presenting/ data steps using a generic computer are well-understood, routine, conventional function when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here). Accordingly, a conclusion that the providing prompt via a smart phone is well-understood, routine conventional activity is supported under Berkheimer Option 2. See MPEP 2106.05 (f) 2
Even when considered in combination, the additional elements in claims 1-13 represent mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer and insignificant extra-solution activity, which do not provide an inventive concept. (Step 2B: NO).
Thus, claims 1-13 are patent ineligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
4. In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) and (a)(2) as being anticipated by Evans [US 2019/0273954 A1].
Regarding claim 1, Evans teaches a method, comprising:
presenting media content to at least one patron in person at a live performance [ See para 0040, ….. The method 400 may further include providing program content with the selected/created/modified content to an audience, audience segments and/or individual users, at 406, such as by the broadcast engine 164 of FIG. 3. The selected/created/modified content may be inserted into program content such that a user viewing an event (e.g., live sporting event, award show, cooking show, fashion show, or any other streamed television-type series or show or movie) via an electronic device (e.g., a computer, mobile/smart/cellular phone, television, or any other electronic device in which a user can view an event) may interact with the content.”]. Presenting media content related to a live performance such as live sporting event of award show or fashion show via an electronic device to the present audience reads on the claimed limitations, “presenting media content to at least one patron in person at a live performance”; and
presenting an engagement prompt to the at least one live patron in conjunction with presenting media content at the live performance [See para 0054, “ …. …… …. The adjunct content may include an overlay that includes an audience poll of nominees for an award, a prompt to provide a thumbs up or thumbs down emoji to a related chat based on the winner or an outfit, a prompt to buy a product or an outfit, a poll for favorite product or event, or any combination thereof.”]. Provision of audience poll in the live event such as a live sporting event or award show or a movie reads on the claimed element of “presenting an engagement prompt to the at least one live patron in conjunction with presenting media content at the live performance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
5. In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
5.1. Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Evans.
Regarding clam 2, the limitations, “The method of claim 1, wherein the media content is a movie “is already covered in the analysis of claim 1, see Evans para 0040. Evans does not disclose explicitly that the live performance is showing the movie at a movie theater. Since Evans teaches that engagement prompts for the live events including movies, fashion shows, award shows are being communicated electronic devices, it would be obvious to an ordinary skill in the art such engagement prompts can be provided at any venue whether in a theatre or at home or elsewhere using the same equipment as described in the Evans’ disclosure.
5.2. Claims 3-4, 7, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Evans in view of Fish [US 2-11/0066444 A1].
Regarding claim 3, Evans teaches proving an engagement prompt to the live audiences via electronic devices such as asking for a poll or nominee from the award show but does not teach that the prompt relates to pay-it-forward prompt. Fish, in the same field of endeavor of providing media content related to live events [see paras 0120 and 0141, “[0120]. The digital marketing and revenue generation (DMRG) method and system has myriad uses; it can be used for one and/or simultaneously for a plurality of uses, including but not limited to membership, games, contests, sporting events, ….., entertainment content, and ….. incentive and rewards-programs, …….., talent casting and competitions, ……. skill competitions, user generated video, picture and music competitions, social networks, special occasions, game shows, talk shows, traditional and new media events, ……. to name but a few. Examples of multiple usages of various embodiments listed below exploit the disclosed method and system and achieve one or more of the advantages described herein.”; “[0141] The variations of embodiments listed below may be utilized by myriad corporations, organizations and people, nationally and internationally, by one and/or simultaneously by a plurality of users, including: advertising agencies, ….. traditional media, television, ……, film, charities, music and concert promoters, ……. to name but a few.”; teaches providing a pay-it-forward prompt [See Fish para 0131“[0131] An international program to win an all expenses paid journey to the next FIFA World Cup may include among its showrooms a showcase of $10,000 "pay-it-forward" donation options that entrants choose from to benefit their favorite charity or cause., “. Therefore, in view of the teachings of Fish in the same field of endeavor of providing media content for live events including for charity with pay-it- forward options, it would have been obvious to an ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective date of the claimed invention to have modified Evans to include the concept of pay-it-forward option and to include a pay-it-forward prompt, because, as shown in Fish, a live event could have been used for a charity cause.
Regarding claim 4, the limitations, “The method of claim 2, wherein the engagement prompt is a pay-it-forward prompt “are similar to the limitations covered for claim 3 and as such claim 4 is unpatentable over Evans in view of Fish on the same basis.
Regarding claim 7, the limitations , “The method of claim 4, wherein the pay-it-forward prompt is presented during credits for the movie”, under their broadest reasonable interpretation cover presenting the prompt at the end of the movie and Evans also teaches that engagement prompt to the live audience can be provided at any time during the running period of an event as needed [See Evans paras 0050 and 0054] to receive response from the live audience which, when applied to the combined teachings of Evans, and Fish to claim 4, can result in providing pay-it-forward prompt at any time during the running of movie including during presenting the credits for the movie.
Regarding claim 13, Evans teaches that the method of claim 4, wherein the pay-it-forward prompt is presented through a smart phone [See Evans para 0040, “The method 400 may further include providing program content with the selected/created/modified content to an audience, audience segments and/or individual users, at 406, such as by the broadcast engine 164 of FIG. 3. The selected/created/modified content may be inserted into program content such that a user viewing an event (e.g., live sporting event, award show, cooking show, fashion show, or any other streamed television-type series or show or movie) via an electronic device (e.g., a computer, mobile/smart/cellular phone.”.
5.3. Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Evans in view of Fish in view of Yang et al. [US 20170142460 A1]; hereinafter Yang.
Regarding claim 5, the combined teachings of Evans and Fish teach and render obvious all the limitations of claim 3, as analyzed above but fail to disclose that the pay-it-forward prompt comprises a QR code on a movie screen. Yang, in the same field of endeavor, of providing content on a screen teaches providing a QR code along with a selected content and this QR code could be anywhere on the screen [See Yang para 0100, “.. . the QR codes and/or text messages may be displayed anywhere on a screen, over a preview screen, and/or over a preview video being played out for the selected content. The QR codes and/or the text messages may also be included in a displayed guide (or menu). The guide may provide a list of available channels, programs and/or videos, corresponding times of the channels and/or programs, and corresponding QR codes and/or text messages. The QR codes and/or text messages are provided for the content not currently authorized for a user, a mobile device, and/or a user receiving device. As used herein, the term “user” may refer to an individual associated with an account provided by a content provider or other user.”. Therefore, in view of the teachings of Yang, it would be obvious to an ordinary skilled in the art to have modified the combined teachings of Evans and Fish as applied to claim 3, at the time of effective date of the claimed invention to incorporate the concept of displaying a QR code with the pay-it-forward prompt because, as shown in Yang, that would authorize to use the content to enable the user fulfil any donation.
5.4. Claims 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Evans in view of Fish in view of Sobhani [US 20150356639 A1].
Regarding claim 10, the combined teachings of Evans and Fish teach and render obvious all the limitations of claim 4, including presenting a media content such as a movie with pay-it-forward prompt for donation and charity causes, as analyzed above but fails to disclose further comprising presenting, in conjunction with the pay-it-forward prompt, a live feed comprising other pending or completed pay-it-forward transactions for the movie. Sobhani, in the same field of endeavor, facilitating paying donations for charitable causes, teaches providing live feed or real-time information on pending or completed transactions based on time and geography [See paras 0166,0179, 0190, Figs 4, 13, 17 and 21 “[0166] ……. The live feed or real-time display can be driven by finalized and verified transactions executed via various merchant websites, for example. The real-time display could be in the form of a status bar that shows the threshold amount and the verified amount accumulated toward the threshold amount based on the most recent data available. “; [0179] FIG. 4 is for one embodiment, as an example, for interface for user, with picture (401), for My Profile. …. It shows color badges for charity achievements for different levels, e.g., for highest dollar value/amount, fastest growing, fastest growth for a newcomer, highest recent member, highest average, recent highest, max so far, max this year, max this period, most referral, best result from referral, most friends in charity, highest accumulated for friends, highest accumulated for a group, highest relative contributions (relative to income or position or age or geography or charity or cause or type or school or country or regional or class of entities), and the like…….[0191] ……… FIG. 13 is for one embodiment, as an example, for interface for charity portal, with donations and disbursement tracking, with pending donations, transactions, and details. “] Therefore, in view of the teachings of Sobhani in the same field of endeavor of facilitating donations electronically, it would have been obvious to an ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective date of the claimed invention to have modified the combined teachings of Evans and Fish as applied to claim 4 to incorporate the concept of providing live feed or real time feedback on the status of donations displaying pending or completed based on time and geography, because feedback helps to know the current status of donations received and how much more are expected from pending transactions, and secondly, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Regarding claim 11, the limitations, “The method of claim 10, wherein the live feed is filtered based at least in part on geography”, are already covered in the analysis of claim 10 above.
Regarding claim 12, the limitations, “The method of claim 10, wherein the live feed is filtered based at least in part on both geography and time”, are already covered in the analysis of claim 10 above.
6. Claims 8-9 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim 5 which depends from a rejected base claim 3 and claim 3 depends from a rejected base claim 1, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim 5 and any intervening claims including clams 1, and 3 and further if the claim 1 is amended to overcome 35 USC 101 rejection.
Conclusion
7 The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
(i) Barakat et al. [US 20210174402 A1 cited in the Non-Final Rejection mailed 12/12/2025; see Abstract and para 0001] describes enabling givers to make donations by providing “pay-it-forward” prompts to the givers so that to make another needy person’s day brighter.
(ii) Weiner et al. [US 20240147028 A1 cited in the Non-Final Rejection mailed 12/12/2025; see para 0012] describes displaying a scannable QR code near/adjacent to displayed content.
Foreign reference:
(iii) KR 20220010293 A cited in the Non-Final Rejection mailed 12/12/2025, see Figs 18-19 which display generating a QR code using a Java script and the QR code can be moved in any position on the screen in relation to the content presented on the screen.
NPL references:
(iv) R. E. Floyd, "Pay It Forward," in IEEE Potentials, vol. 36, no. 2, pp. 5-47, March-April 2017, retrieved from IP. Com on 07252026 describes that "pay-it-forward" concept has been in use many many years back.
(v) A. R. Kang, H. Kim, J. Woo, J. Park and H. K. Kim, "Altruism in games: Helping others help themselves," 2014 13th Annual Workshop on Network and Systems Support for Games, Nagoya, Japan, 2014, pp. 1-6, retrieved from IP. Com on 12/08/2025 and cited in the Non-Final Rejection mailed 12/12/2025 describes [see page 1] software for participating in donation campaigns and enabling behaviors like “Pay it forward”.
Conclusion
8. THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 YOGESH C GARG whose telephone number is (571)272-6756. The examiner can normally be reached Max-Flex.
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, Maria-Teresa Thein can be reached at 571-272-6764. 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.
/YOGESH C GARG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3688
Prosecution Insights