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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Applicant’s amendment filed on 06/24/2025 has been entered. Applicant has amended claims 1, 8 and 15. Currently claims 1-21 are pending in this application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments with respect to claims 1, 8 and 15 have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1, 3-5, 7-8, 10-12, 14-15, 17-19 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vijayan (US 2020/0005284 A1), hereinafter, “Vijayan” in view of Caldwell (US 2019/0220836 A1), hereinafter, “Caldwell” and further in view of Ramaswamy et al. (US 2023/0081488 A1), hereinafter, “Ramaswamy” and Nagel (US 2013/0238474 A1), hereinafter, “Nagel”.
Regarding Claim 1, Vijayan discloses a method for initiating a royalty percentage calculation with a minting process of a non-fungible token (NFT) associated with media content, the method comprising:
identifying, via a digital vault, the media content stored and accessible through the digital vault in a request from an NFT creator to utilize the media content in the NFT (See, Paragraphs 0090, 0009 and 0023);
initiating the minting process with the media content that converts digital data associated with the media content into digital assets recorded on a blockchain (See, Paragraph 0065);
in response to the minting process, initiating, via the digital vault, one or more payment transactions to accounts associated with one or more user devices associated with the media content or the NFT in accordance with royalty
Vijayan fails to disclose the royalty percentages of the media content and transmitting a first alert to the NFT creator or right holder indicating completion of the minting process and transmitting a second alert to the NFT creator or rights holder associated with the one or more payment transactions to the accounts after transmission of the first alert.
Caldwell discloses a system wherein third-party system initiate payment transactions (See, Paragraphs 0056 and 0071) and royalties are calculated in percentages (See, Paragraph 0054 and 0064).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have, the transactions in the system of Vijayan, to be initiated by third party system in order to support selling and buying of NFTs on multiple third party platforms which would greatly increases the reach of the artists and the content and to calculate the royalties in percentages as taught by Caldwell because calculating in percentages would provide easy to implement solution and would compensate all the stakeholders automatically without any further negotiation of the compensation required in case of the price changes of the NFTs.
Ramaswamy discloses transmitting a first alert to NFT creator or right holder indicating completion of a minting process (See, Paragraph 0065).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to transmit, in the system of Vijayan and Caldwell, a first alert to NFT creator or right holder indicating completion of a minting process as taught by Ramaswamy so that NFT creator can then list the NFT in the marketplace or save it in a private wallet.
Nagel discloses transmitting an alert to all parties related to content payments transactions to the accounts (See, Abstract and Paragraph 0020).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to transmit, in the system of Vijayan, an alert to all parties related to content payments transactions to the accounts as taught by Nagel including the NFT creator and rights holder associated with the one or more payment transactions because this “saves the distributor time, promotes accuracy and ensures royalty contract compliance” (See, Nagel, Paragraph 0020). Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to transfer the second alert in the combination after the first alert because NFT is created prior to the processing of payment related to a sell of such NFT’s in the marketplace.
Regarding Claims 8 and 15, Vijayan discloses a digital vault computer system for initiating a royalty percentage calculation with a minting process of a non-fungible token (NFT) associated with media content, the digital vault computer system comprising:
a memory (See, Paragraph 0117); and
one or more processors (See, Paragraph 0117) that are configured to execute machine readable instructions stored in the memory for performing a method comprising:
identifying the media content stored and accessible through the digital vault in a request from an NFT creator to utilize the media content in the NFT (See, Paragraphs 0090, 0009 and 0023);
initiating the minting process with the media content that converts digital data associated with the media content into digital assets recorded on a blockchain (See, Paragraph 0065);
Vijayan fails to disclose third party system initiating payment transactions and the royalty percentages of the media content and transmitting a first alert of the minting process and transmitting a second alert to the NFT creator or rights holder associated with the one or more payment transactions to the accounts after transmission of the first alert.
Caldwell discloses a system wherein third-party system initiate payment transactions (See, Paragraphs 0056 and 0071) and royalties are calculated in percentages (See, Paragraph 0054 and 0064).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have, the transactions in the system of Vijayan, to be initiated by third party system in order to support selling and buying of NFTs on multiple third party platforms which would greatly increases the reach of the artists and the content and to calculate the royalties in percentages as taught by Caldwell because calculating in percentages would provide easy to implement solution and would compensate all the stakeholders automatically without any further negotiation of the compensation required in case of the price changes of the NFTs.
Ramaswamy discloses transmitting a first alert of a minting process (See, Paragraph 0065).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to transmit, in the system of Vijayan and Caldwell, a first alert of a minting process as taught by Ramaswamy so that NFT creator can then list the NFT in the marketplace or save it in a private wallet.
Nagel discloses transmitting an alert to all parties related to content payments transactions to the accounts (See, Abstract and Paragraph 0020).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to transmit, in the system of Vijayan, Caldwell and Ramaswamy, an alert to all parties related to content payments transactions to the accounts as taught by Nagel including the NFT creator and rights holder associated with the one or more payment transactions because this “saves the distributor time, promotes accuracy and ensures royalty contract compliance” (See, Nagel, Paragraph 0020). Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to transfer the second alert in the combination after the first alert because NFT is created prior to the processing of payment related to a sell of such NFT’s in the marketplace.
Regarding Claims 3, 10 and 17, the rejection of claims 1, 8 and 15 is incorporated and the combination of Vijayan, Caldwell, Ramaswamy and Nagel further discloses wherein data associated with the royalty percentages are accessible through an authentication process (See, Vijayan, Paragraph 0084 as combined with royalty percentages aspect of Nagel).
Regarding Claims 4, 11 and 18, the rejection of claims 1, 8 and 15 is incorporated and the combination of Vijayan, Caldwell, Ramaswamy and Nagel further discloses wherein the media content is a song element (See, Vijayan, Paragraphs 0068 and 0069).
Regarding Claims 5, 12 and 19 the rejection of claims 1, 8 and 15 is incorporated and the combination of Vijayan, Caldwell, Ramaswamy and Nagel further discloses wherein the media content is a complete piece of content comprising multiple elements (See, Vijayan, Paragraphs 0009 and 0065).
Regarding Claims 7, 14 and 21, the rejection of claims 1, 8 and 15 is incorporated and the combination of Vijayan, Caldwell, Ramaswamy and Nagel further discloses receiving metadata associated with the media content; and storing, via the digital vault, the metadata associated with the media content (See, Paragraphs 0048 and 0092).
Claims 2, 9 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vijayan in view of Caldwell and further in view of Ramaswamy and Nagel and further in view of Steinwedel et al. (US 2019/0355336 A1), hereinafter, “Steinwedel”.
Regarding Claims 2, 9 and 16, the rejection of claims 1, 8 and 15 is incorporated and the combination of Vijayan, Caldwell, Ramaswamy and Nagel does not explicitly disclose wherein the media content is generated through a collaboration in creating or revising the media content by a plurality of user devices.
Steinwedel discloses a system wherein a media content is generated through a collaboration in creating or revising the media content by a plurality of user devices (See, abstract, Paragraphs 0006 and 0009).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to generate, the media content in the system of Vijayan, through a collaboration in creating or revising the media content by a plurality of user devices as taught by Steinwedel in order to support media content by multiple content creator and share the royalties accordingly.
Claims 6, 13 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vijayan in view of Caldwell, Ramaswamy and Nagel and further in view of Peters et al. (US 2012/0072608 A1), hereinafter, “Peters”.
Regarding Claims 6, 13 and 20, the rejection of claims 1, 8 and 15 is incorporated and the combination of Vijayan, Caldwell, Ramaswamy and Nagel fails to disclose receiving the media content; and uploading, via the digital vault, the media content to a repository.
However, Peters discloses receiving a media content; and uploading, via a digital vault, the media content to a repository (See, Fig. 1 and also Paragraphs 0033, 0043 and 0044).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to receive, the media content in the system of Vijayan, and uploading, via the digital vault, the media content to a repository as taught by Peters so that the content creator could simply upload their content to blockchain-based content engagement platform for streaming as well as turning their content into NFTs as already disclosed by Vijayan.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YOGESH PALIWAL whose telephone number is (571)270-1807. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00AM-5:00PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Joseph P Hirl can be reached at 5712723685. 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 PALIWAL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2435