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
Status of the Claims
The following office action in response to the restriction election filed on 2/24/2026.
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I: claims 1-12 and 18-20 in the reply filed on 2/24/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 1 and 18 are currently amended.
Claims 21-25 are newly added.
Claims 13-17 are cancelled.
Therefore, claims 1-12 and 18-25 are pending and addressed below.
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 1-12 and 18-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claims 1-12 and 18-25 are directed to a computer-implemented method, a system, a non-transitory computer-readable medium and thus a statutory category of invention (Step 1: YES).
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention recites an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recites the limitations of “…obtaining engagement by a plurality of user accounts with respective media content items of a plurality of media content items; generating historical streaming data for the respective media content items based on the engagement of the plurality of user accounts with the respective media content items; determining an estimated streaming count of a media content item of the plurality of media content items over a time period based on the historical streaming data for the respective media content items; determining, based on the estimated streaming count and prior to receiving an actual streaming count for the time period, an estimated resource allocation for an artist of the media content item, wherein the estimated resource allocation corresponds to the time period; and facilitating an advance of funds based on the estimated resource allocation to an account associated with the artist during the time period; and facilitating an advance of funds based on the estimated resource allocation to an account associated with the artist during the time period”. These recited limitations, as drafted, recite a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers concepts of commercial or legal interactions (including business relations, i.e. providing funds to the artist based on the allocation of the media content items) but for the recitation of generic computer components. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers concepts of commercial or legal interactions but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
The additional limitations (besides those that recite the abstract idea) include the presence in the method claim of a media content service provider system that are all recited at a high level of generality to perform the functions of “…obtaining… engagement by a plurality of user accounts…; generating …historical streaming data for the respective media content items; determining …an estimated streaming count of a media content item…; determining …an estimated resource allocation for an artist of the media content item; and facilitating… an advance of funds to the account of the artist….”, such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a particular application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception or amount to an inventive concept. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional limitations of the media content service provider system that are all recited at a high level of generality to perform the functions of “…obtaining… engagement by a plurality of user accounts…; generating …historical streaming data for the respective media content items; determining …an estimated streaming count of a media content item…; determining …an estimated resource allocation for an artist of the media content item; and facilitating… an advance of funds to the account of the artist….”, above amounts to mere instructions to apply the exception using the generic computer component. When viewing the additional elements either individually or as an ordered combination, the claim as a whole does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claim does not include improvements to another technology or technical field, improvements to the function of the computer itself, and does not provide meaningful limitations beyond general linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. In effect, the additional limitations add the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) to the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer. Mere instructions to apply an exception using the generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Thus, the claim is not patent eligible.
Independent claims 18 and 21 are rejected based on the reasoning applicable to claim 1. Thus, the claims are not patent-eligible.
Dependent claims 2-12, 19-20 and 22-25 are dependent on claims 1, 18 and 21. Therefore, claims 2-12, 19-20 and 22-25 are directed to the same abstract idea of claims 1, 18 and 21. Claims 2-12, 19-20 and 22-25 further recite the limitations that merely refer back to further details of the abstract idea. In addition, the additional limitations (besides those that recite the abstract idea) of the media content service provider system application, the social platform application, the display of the computing device, the machine learning model and the application included in the dependent claims 2, 4, 8, 9, 10, 12, 19, 24 that are all recited at a high level of generality to perform the functions of “…receiving …a request to withdraw at least a portion of the advance of funds from the account; selectively …withdrawing at least the portion of the advance of funds from the account…” (claim 2 and claim 19); “withholding …withdrawal of at least the portion of the advance of funds from the account…; and outputting…a message indicating the withholding of the withdrawal (claim 4 and claim 24); “generating… the estimated streaming count using the historical streaming data…” (claim 8); “receiving …an indication of at least one of an actual streaming count …; and updating …one or more parameters of the actual streaming count of the media content item…” (claim 9); “outputting…an account balance…” (claim 10); “associated…the payment service and the media content service provider system…” (claim 12)”, such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using the generic computer component. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims are directed to an abstract idea.
The dependent claims 2-12, 19-20 and 22-25 does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception or amount to an inventive concept. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements amount to nothing more than an instruction to “apply it” with the judicial exception. In addition, the additional limitations (besides those that recite the abstract idea) of the media content service provider system application, the social platform application, the display of the computing device, the machine learning model and the application included in the dependent claims 2, 4, 8, 9, 10, 12, 19, 24 that are all recited at a high level of generality to perform the functions of “…receiving …a request to withdraw at least a portion of the advance of funds from the account; selectively …withdrawing at least the portion of the advance of funds from the account…” (claim 2 and claim 19); “withholding …withdrawal of at least the portion of the advance of funds from the account…; and outputting…a message indicating the withholding of the withdrawal (claim 4 and claim 24); “generating… the estimated streaming count using the historical streaming data…” (claim 8); “receiving …an indication of at least one of an actual streaming count …; and updating …one or more parameters of the actual streaming count of the media content item…” (claim 9); “outputting…an account balance…” (claim 10); “associated…the payment service and the media content service provider system…” (claim 12)”, above amounts to mere instructions to apply the exception using the generic computer component. When viewing the additional elements either individually or as an ordered combination, the claim as a whole does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claim does not include improvements to another technology or technical field, improvements to the function of the computer itself, and does not provide meaningful limitations beyond general linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. In effect, the additional limitations add the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) to the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer. Mere instructions to apply an exception using the generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Thus, when considering the combination of elements and the claimed as a whole, the dependent claims 2-12, 19-20 and 22-25 are not patent eligible.
Notes: Regarding the prior art rejections, Srinivasaraghavan et al. (2020/0342020) teaches the personalized content recommendation interface is provided by a content recommendation system that includes logic to select cataloged content items from a content space based on a user's observed sensitivity to content relevance and associated cost. The content recommendation systems may inefficiently use network resources by way of generating less-than-optimal content recommendations for users. Further, network resources may be also unproductively used to present the sub-optimal content recommendation to the users, which may result in extended browsing sessions and lower user selections rates. Consequently, the individual user experience would be improved, and the overall consumption of media content increased, in response to technology-based solutions for more efficiently-performing content offering selection and presentation systems. Subramanian et al. (2017/0322947) teaches the server may present or recommend media content items to the user based, at least in part, on the assigned user media elements, user prioritized keywords, and media content element ratings. The server determines a media content element score for each media content item for each user. The media content element score is based on a correlation of the media elements assigned to the user and the media content element ratings associated with the media content item. Based on the media content element scores for the respective media content items, and taking into consideration user prioritized keywords, the server may provide, for example, a ranked list of media content items to the user. The user may request a media content item from the ranked list. The media content provider may then provide the requested media content to the user via, e.g., the user device or the media device.
However, the combination of prior arts of record would be hind-sight reasoning to combine the individual elements disclosed in the prior art in order to achieve Applicant's claimed invention.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Tien C. Nguyen whose telephone number is 571-270-5108. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday (6am-2pm EST).
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor,
Bennett Sigmond can be reached on 303-297-4411. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-270-6108.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/TIEN C NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3694
Prosecution Insights