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. Claims 1-13 filed 03/29/2025 are pending for examination.
2. Priority: This application claims priority to the provisional application 63/455418 filed 03/29/2023.
3. Applicant has not filed an IDS.
Claim Objections
4.1. Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
The claim 1 needs to be amended as follows:
“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.”
Appropriate correction is required.
4.2. Duplicate claims warning:
Applicant is advised that should claim 5 be found allowable, claim 6 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
5. 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 1-13 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 1-13 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;
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 1-13 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 2-13 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 1-13 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 5-6 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 fall 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 1-13 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 recite 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 components, 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 components, and generally linking the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, using a generic computer components 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
6. 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
7. 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.
7.1. 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.
7.2. 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 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.” .
7.3. Claims 5-6, 8-9 are 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.
Regarding claim 6, the limitations “The method of claim 3, wherein the pay-it-forward prompt comprises a QR code on a movie screen”, are same as already analyzed being unpatentable over Evans in view of Fish in view of Yang.
Regarding claim 8, the combined teachings of Evans, Fish and Yang teach and render obvious all the limitations of claim 6 including presenting a media content with pay-it-forward prompt comprising a QR code and Evans , as analyzed above for claim 7, further teaches that the pay-it-forward prompt is presented during credits for the movie, as analyzed for claim 7 above.
Regarding claim 9, the limitations, “ The method of claim 8, wherein the QR code is shown adjacent to the credits for the movie.”, are already covered in the limitations of claims 6 [see claim 5 analysis] wherein Yang [see para 0100] teaches that QR code can be displayed with selected content on any place on the screen which can include displaying QR code adjacent to the credits of a movie on the screen.
7.4. 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.
Conclusion
8. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
(i) Barakat et al. [US 20210174402 A1; 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; see para 0012] describes displaying a scannable QR code near/adjacent to displayed content.
Foreign reference:
(iii) KR 20220010293 A, 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 reference:
(iv) 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 describes [see page 1] software for participating in donation campaigns and enabling behaviors like “Pay it forward”.
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, Jeffrey A. Smith can be reached at 571-272-6763. 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
/YOGESH C GARG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3688