DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d).
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendment, filed 01/07/2026, has been entered and fully considered.
In light of Applicant’s amendment, the objection to claim 5 has been withdrawn.
In light of Applicant’s amendment, claims 1-5 are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
In light of Applicant’s amendment, the rejection of claims 1-5 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), due to claim interpretation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) has been withdrawn.
In light of Applicant’s amendment, the rejection of claim 17 under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter, has been withdrawn.
In light of Applicant’s amendment, the rejection of claim 17 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by a general-purpose computer, has been withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page 11, with respect to the objection to the drawings have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objection of FIG. 1-3, 20 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 11-12, regarding the rejection of claim 4 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) has been fully considered but is not persuasive. Applicant argues that amendments were made in order to clarify the claimed invention. However, claim 4 still recites the limitation "the secondary use" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Therefore, claim 4 is indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 12-18, regarding the rejection of claims 1-5, 16-17 under 35 U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered but is not persuasive. Applicant argues that currently amended independent claims recite significant claim elements that cannot be satisfied by mental steps or processes. However, the independent claims, as recited, are satisfied by mental steps or processes because the claim recites acquiring rights information… and performs assignment of rights information… which can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper using a ledger of rights information and corresponding entries for content. Next, Applicant argues that the claimed subject matter relates to a specific improvement in computer technology. However, the abstract idea recited in the claims does not add a meaningful limitation to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the claim merely assigns rights information without improving the computer technology of protecting content by controlling user access to content. The Examiner suggests incorporating subject matter from paragraph 0033-0034 to recite a user accessing the second content based on assigned rights in the assignment of rights information. The Examiner finds that the suggested subject matter integrates the abstract idea into a practical application because it recites allowing a user to access content when the user has been assigned rights to do so.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-5, 16-17, see pages 19-20, 23-26, have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Interpretation
The Examiner notes:
The broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met. See MPEP 2111.04(II).
With respect to claim 16, it recites the following conditions and corresponding contingent steps:
With respect to claim 16, since the claim does not require the condition of “in a case where second content has been produced by partially using the first content”, the contingent step “performing… assignment of rights information…” need not be carried out in order for the claimed method to be performed.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-5, 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
It is noted that original claims may lack written description when the claims define the invention in functional language specifying a desired result but the specification does not sufficiently describe how the function is performed or the result is achieved. More specifically, the function must be described with sufficient detail so that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand how the inventor intended the function to be performed; See MPEP § 2161.01(I).
Regarding claims 1, 16-17, the claimed “… a set threshold of right holders…” is not supported by Applicant’s original disclosure because the “… set of threshold right holders …” is not described as being a part of the “acquired rights information” being recorded as a “metadata”. Further, the Disclosure does not provide any mention of the term “threshold”, let alone a threshold being utilized in the manner recited within claims 1, 16, and 17.
Thus, the claim limitation is not adequately supported by the specification by a description as to how the function is performed necessary to demonstrate possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 2-5 are rejected under a similar rationale. The dependent claims included in the statement of rejection but not specifically addressed in the body of the rejection have inherited the deficiencies of their parent claim and have not resolved the deficiencies. Therefore, they are rejected based on the same rationale as applied to their parent claims above.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 4, it recites the limitation "the secondary use" in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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 1-5, 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea (35 U.S.C. 101 Judicial Exception) without significantly more. The claims recite acquiring and assigning rights related to content, comprising: “acquires rights information…”, “performs…assignment of rights information…”, which are directed to the abstract idea of mental processes. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the generically recited computer elements do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements, when considered separately and in combination, do not add significantly more to the abstract idea, as they are well-understood, routine, conventional computer functions as recognized by the courts.
Based upon consideration of all the relevant factors with respect to the claimed invention as a whole, the claims are determined to be directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The rationale for this determination is explained infra:
The following are Principles of Law:
A patent may be obtained for “any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof”; 35 U.S.C. § 101. The Supreme Court has consistently held that this provision contains an important implicit exception: laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas are not patentable; See Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 2354 (2014); Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 67 (1972) (“Phenomena of nature, though just discovered, mental processes, and abstract intellectual concepts are not patentable, as they are the basic tools of scientific and technological work.”). Notwithstanding that a law of nature or an abstract idea, by itself, is not patentable, an application of these concepts may be deserving of patent protection; See Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 132 S. Ct. 1289, 1293–94 (2012). In Mayo, the Court stated that “to transform an unpatentable law of nature into a patent-eligible application of such a law, one must do more than simply state the law of nature while adding the words ‘apply it.’” Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1294 (citation omitted).
In Alice, the Court reaffirmed the framework set forth previously in Mayo “for distinguishing patents that claim laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas from those that claim patent-eligible applications of these concepts.” Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2355. The test for determining subject matter eligibility requires a first step of determining whether the claims are directed to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. If the claims are directed to one of the four patent-eligible subject matter categories, then the Examiner must perform a two-part analysis to determine whether a claim that is directed to a judicial exception recites additional elements that amount to significantly more than the exception. The first part of the second step in the analysis is to “determine whether the claims at issue are directed to one of those patent-ineligible concepts.” Id. If the claims are directed to a patent-ineligible concept, then the second part of the second step in the analysis is to consider the elements of the claims “individually and ‘as an ordered combination”’ to determine whether there are additional elements that “‘transform the nature of the claim’ into a patent-eligible application.” Id. (quoting Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1298, 1297). In other words, the second step in the analysis is to “search for an ‘inventive concept’‒ i.e., an element or combination of elements that is ‘sufficient to ensure that the patent in practice amounts to significantly more than a patent on the [ineligible concept] itself.’” Id. (brackets in original) (quoting Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1294). The prohibition against patenting an abstract idea “cannot be circumvented by attempting to limit the use of the formula to a particular technological environment or adding insignificant post-solution activity.” Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 610–11 (2010) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). The Court in Alice noted that “[s]imply appending conventional steps, specified at a high level of generality,” was not “enough” [in Mayo] to supply an “‘inventive concept.’” Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2357 (quoting Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1300, 1297, 1294).
In the “2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance” (2019 PEG), the USPTO has prepared revised guidance for use by USPTO personnel in evaluating subject matter eligibility based upon rulings by the courts.
The Examiner is bound by and applies the framework as set forth by the Court in Mayo and reaffirmed by the Court in Alice and follows the 2019 PEG for determining whether the claims are directed to patent-eligible subject matter.
Step 1: Are the claims at issue directed to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter?
The Examiner finds that claims 1-5, 16 are directed to one of the four statutory categories.
The Examiner finds that claim 17 is not directed to one of the four statutory categories.
Step 2A – Prong One: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
The Examiner finds that the claims are directed to the abstract idea of acquiring and assigning rights related to content, comprising: “acquires rights information…”, “performs…assignment of rights information…”, which are directed to the abstract idea of mental processes.
Step 2A – Prong Two: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the Judicial Exception into a practical application?
The abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application because the generically recited computer elements do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer.
In determining whether the abstract idea was integrated into a practical application, the Examiner has considered whether there were any limitations indicative of integration into a practical application, such as:
(1) Improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field; See MPEP § 2106.05(a)
(2) Applying or using a judicial exception to affect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition; See Vanda Memo (Recent Subject Matter Eligibility Decision: Vanda Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. West-Ward Pharmaceuticals)
(3) Applying the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine; See MPEP § 2106.05(b)
(4) Effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; See MPEP § 2106.05(c)
(5) Applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception; See MPEP § 2106.05(e) and Vanda Memo
The Examiner notes that claim features of: “acquires rights information…”, “performs…assignment of rights information…”does not improve the functioning of a computer or technical field, do not effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, do not apply or use a particular machine, do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, and do not apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
Instead, the claim features of acquiring and assigning rights related to content merely use a general-purpose computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea (See MPEP § 2106.05(f)) and merely generally link the use of the abstract idea to a field of use (See MPEP § 2106.05(h)). Thus, the Examiner finds that the claimed invention does not recite additional elements that integrate the Judicial Exception into a practical application.
In particular, in claims 1, 3, 5, 16, 17, an assignment unit may assign secondary rights information. However, the secondary rights information are not required to be assigned to the rights information of the second content or are not required to improve the functioning of a computer by permitting the rights to be used.
Further, in claims 2, 4, information indicating production of content is permitted and information indicating that distribution of content is permitted are assigned as rights information to second content. However, the assignment of this information to content rights does not improve the functioning of a computer because the claim does not require the production of content or distribution of content, after an assertion of the permitted rights.
Step 2B: Is there something else in the claims that ensures that they are directed to significantly more than a patent-ineligible concept?
The claims, as a whole, require nothing significantly more than generic computer implementation or can be performed entirely by a human. The additional element(s) or combination of element(s) in the claims other than the abstract idea per se amount to no more than recitation of generic computer structure (e.g., a computer) that serves to perform generic computer functions (e.g., acquiring, assigning) that are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry. The claimed rights information, first content, second content, information indicating production of content is permitted, information indicating an agreement has been obtained, information indicating that distribution of content is permitted are all numbers, data structures, or datum. Each of these elements are individually dispositive of patent eligibility because of the following legal holdings:
“Data in its ethereal, non-physical form is simply information that does not fall under any of the categories of eligible subject matter under section 101.” Digitech Image Techs., LLC v. Electronics for Imaging, Inc., 758 F.3d 1344, 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2014).
The Supreme Court has also explained that “[a]bstract software code is an idea without physical embodiment,” i.e., an abstraction. Microsoft Corp. v. AT&T Corp., 550 U.S. 437, 449 (2007).
A claim that recites no more than software, logic, or a data structure (i.e., an abstract idea) – with no structural tie or functional interrelationship to an article of manufacture, machine, process or composition of matter does not fall within any statutory category and is not patentable subject matter; data structures in ethereal, non-physical form are non-statutory subject matter. In re Warmerdam, 33 F.3d 1354, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 1994); see Nuijten, 500 F.3d at 1357.
Furthermore, the claimed invention does not have a specific asserted improvement in computer capabilities, nor is it a specific implementation of a solution to a problem in the software arts; See Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
Rather, the claims are merely directed towards the abstract idea of acquiring and assigning rights related to content, which is similar to ideas that the courts have found to be abstract, as noted supra, and the claims are without a “practical application” or anything “significantly more”.
Considering each of the claim elements in turn, the function performed by the computer system at each step of the process does no more than require a generic computer to perform a well-understood, routine, and conventional activity at a high level of generality.
For example, performing assignment of rights information to content which has been found by the courts to be a well-understood, routine, conventional activity in computers; See e.g. Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network). Similarly, acquiring rights information pre-assigned to content is merely storing, updating and retrieving information in memory, which has been found by the courts to be a well-understood, routine, conventional activity in computers; See e.g. Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93.
Further note that the abstract idea of acquiring and assigning rights related to content to which the claimed invention is directed has a prior art basis outside of a computing/technological environment, e.g., a clothing designer designs a clothing article that is modified by a tailor for a customer. The clothing designer still retains design rights and brand marking on the clothing article after the modification by the tailor.
The prohibition against patenting an abstract idea “cannot be circumvented by attempting to limit the use of the formula to a particular technological environment or adding insignificant post-solution activity.” Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 610–11 (2010) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). The Court in Alice noted that “[s]imply appending conventional steps, specified at a high level of generality,” was not “enough” [in Mayo] to supply an “‘inventive concept.’” Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2357 (quoting Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1300, 1297, 1294).
Viewed as a whole, the claims simply recite the steps of using generic computer components. The claims do not purport, for example, to improve the functioning of the computer system itself. Nor does it affect an improvement in any other technology or technical field. Instead, the claims amount to nothing significantly more than an instruction to implement the abstract idea using generic computer components. This is insufficient to transform an abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 1-5, 16-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Chen et al. (USP App Pub 2018/0349572; hereinafter Chen).
Regarding claim 1, An information processing apparatus (Chen: abstract, “copyright authorization management method and system”) comprising: circuitry (Chen: paragraph [0383], “These computer program instructions may be provided for a general-purpose computer”) configured to
acquire rights information (Chen: paragraph [0019], “After obtaining the CC clause of the cited work”) pre-assigned to first content (Chen: paragraph [0117], “The copyright authorization management apparatus obtains information about the cited work in a copyright application request, queries the block chain for a corresponding copyright registration transaction for the cited work based on the information about the cited work, and obtains CC (Creative Commons) clauses of the cited work that are recorded in the copyright registration transaction for the cited work”; paragraph [0091], “the copyright applicant enters information about a derivative work, a cited work, and the like (that is, a work on which re-creation is performed) into the copyright application client” i.e., the cited work corresponds to the claimed first content), and
perform, in a case where second content (Chen: paragraph [0091], “the copyright applicant enters information about a derivative work, a cited work, and the like (that is, a work on which re-creation is performed) into the copyright application client” i.e., the derivative work corresponds to the claimed second content) has been produced by partially using the first content (Chen: paragraph [0005], “a derivative work is obtained based on citation of an original work”), assignment of rights information related to the second content (Chen: paragraph [0174], “After the block generation apparatus implements persistence of the valid contract transaction in the block chain, an author of a derivative work can further perform copyright registration of the derivative work”) based on the acquired rights information pre-assigned to the first content (Chen: paragraph [0174], “FIG. 16 shows an example of a data structure of a copyright registration transaction for a derivative work… Output content of a copyright registration transaction for the derivative work includes authorization related information of a cited work”),
wherein the acquired rights information pre-assigned to the first content is recorded as metadata of the first content (Chen: paragraph [0117], “queries the block chain for a corresponding copyright registration transaction for the cited work based on the information about the cited work, and obtains CC (Creative Commons) clauses of the cited work that are recorded in the copyright registration transaction for the cited work” i.e., information about the cited work on a blockchain is metadata of the cited work. See References cited) and includes a set threshold of right holders (Chen: paragraph [0120], “After the copyright authorization management apparatus completes check of the copyright registration request, if the cited work needs to be authorized, … The copyright authorization management apparatus queries the block chain…and obtains corresponding owner-of-copyright information”; paragraph [0122], “When there are a plurality of owners of copyright, generally, only one of the owners of copyright is required to be responsible for a copyright contract… A person responsible for contract determining is specified in advance” i.e., the threshold is one; paragraph [0122], “information about the specified person responsible for contract determining is stored in the owner-of-copyright information” i.e., the specified person, indicating a single person threshold, is stored in the owner-of-copyright information which is metadata about the cited work on the block chain) whose permission must be received (Chen: paragraph [0123], “The contract determining notification is used to instruct the owner of copyright to determine the authorization contract, and carries copyright application-related information of a to-be-authorized work”) in order to perform the assignment of the rights information related to the second content (Chen: paragraph [0128], “After the contract is determined, one of owners of copyright (a person in charge among owners of copyright) generates transaction information… and returns the transaction information to the copyright authorization management apparatus”; paragraph [0147], “After receiving the signed contract transactions sent by the copyright application client and the owner-of-copyright client, the copyright authorization management apparatus determines whether the signed contract transaction includes a signature. If the signed contract transaction does not include a signature, it indicates that an error” i.e., the owner-of-copyright can choose to sign the contract to authorize it; paragraph [0095], “For an author of a derivative work, obtaining the valid contract transaction is equivalent to obtaining a right of adaptation”).
Regarding claim 2, Chen teaches the information processing apparatus according to claim 1,
wherein the circuitry (Chen: paragraph [0383], “a general-purpose computer”) acquires, as the rights information pre-assigned to the first content (Chen: paragraph [0117], “The copyright authorization management apparatus obtains information about the cited work in a copyright application request, queries the block chain for a corresponding copyright registration transaction for the cited work based on the information about the cited work, and obtains CC (Creative Commons) clauses of the cited work that are recorded in the copyright registration transaction for the cited work”), information related to permission (Chen: paragraph [0117], “The CC clauses may be represented by code names in the copyright registration transaction”; paragraph [0119], “the CC clause is BY-NC-SA (attribution-noncommercial-share alike)”; paragraph [0006], “Noncommercial (Noncommercial, NC for short): A profit purpose is disallowed.” i.e., a user is not permitted to use it for a profit purpose) and use conditions regarding secondary use (Chen: paragraph [0119], “the CC clause is BY-NC-SA (attribution-noncommercial-share alike)”; paragraph [0006], “Share alike (Share Alike, SA for short): An original work is allowed to be altered, but must be published by using a same license” i.e., this is a condition that occurs when a user uses the cited work to create a derivative work. The user must publish it under the same license) that has been set in the first content (Chen: paragraph [0117], “recorded in the copyright registration transaction for the cited work”), and
wherein the circuitry assigns, as the rights information related to the second content (Chen: paragraph [0174], “After the block generation apparatus implements persistence of the valid contract transaction in the block chain, an author of a derivative work can further perform copyright registration of the derivative work”), information indicating that production of the second content using the first content is permitted (Chen: paragraph [0174], “FIG. 16 shows an example of a data structure of a copyright registration transaction for a derivative work”; paragraph [0174], “The output content includes an address of an authorized person and authorization information, where the authorization information includes a URL of a valid contract file, a marked status (a successful state)”; FIG. 16, Authorization status (successful state) and URL of a valid contract file are included in the copyright registration transaction for the derivative work; paragraph [0095], “For an author of a derivative work, obtaining the valid contract transaction is equivalent to obtaining a right of adaptation”).
Regarding claim 3, Chen teaches the information processing apparatus according to claim 2,
wherein the circuitry (Chen: paragraph [0383], “a general-purpose computer”) acquires, as the rights information pre-assigned to the first content (Chen: paragraph [0120], “After the copyright authorization management apparatus completes check of the copyright registration request, if the cited work needs to be authorized, … The copyright authorization management apparatus queries the block chain…and obtains corresponding owner-of-copyright information”), information related to a plurality of right holders (Chen: paragraph [0122], “When there are a plurality of owners of copyright, generally, only one of the owners of copyright is required to be responsible for a copyright contract… A person responsible for contract determining is specified in advance”; paragraph [0122], “information about the specified person responsible for contract determining is stored in the owner-of-copyright information” i.e., the plurality of owners delegate a responsibility to the responsible person) permitting secondary use of the first content (Chen: paragraph [0123], “The contract determining notification is used to instruct the owner of copyright to determine the authorization contract, and carries copyright application-related information of a to-be-authorized work”; paragraph [0095], “For an author of a derivative work, obtaining the valid contract transaction is equivalent to obtaining a right of adaptation”), and
wherein the circuitry assigns, when the second content is produced (Chen: paragraph [0109], “FIG. 3 is an interaction flowchart of performing the method shown in FIG. 2 when an author of a derivative work applies for a copyright. As shown in FIG. 3, the author of the derivative work first performs copyright registration”), information indicating that an agreement has been obtained from the plurality of right holders (Chen: paragraph [0124], “Compared with FIG. 3, in FIG. 5A and FIG. 5B, interaction involving a third-party IM system is added”; paragraph [0125], “The group discussion invitation is sent to all owner-of-copyright clients”) permitting secondary use of the first content (Chen: paragraph [0016], “In this way, the contract approved by both the parties can be made, a possibility of contract modification is reduced, and contract determining efficiency is improved. After the contract is determined, a main person in charge among owners of copyright returns determined contract information to the copyright authorization management apparatus based on the determined contract”; paragraph [0095], “For an author of a derivative work, obtaining the valid contract transaction is equivalent to obtaining a right of adaptation”).
Regarding claim 4, Chen teaches the information processing apparatus according to claim 1,
wherein the circuitry acquires (Chen: paragraph [0383], “a general-purpose computer”), as the rights information pre-assigned to the first content (Chen: paragraph [0117], “The copyright authorization management apparatus obtains information about the cited work in a copyright application request, queries the block chain for a corresponding copyright registration transaction for the cited work based on the information about the cited work, and obtains CC (Creative Commons) clauses of the cited work that are recorded in the copyright registration transaction for the cited work”), information related to permission and use conditions (Chen: paragraph [0117], “The CC clauses may be represented by code names in the copyright registration transaction”; paragraph [0119], “the CC clause is BY-NC-SA (attribution-noncommercial-share alike)”) related to distribution of content produced by the secondary use of the first content (Chen: paragraph [0006], “Share alike (Share Alike, SA for short): An original work is allowed to be altered, but must be published by using a same license” i.e., a derivative work of an original work must be distributed/published using the same license), and
wherein the circuitry assigns (Chen: paragraph [0119], “the CC clause of the cited work indicates that authorization is required, for example, the CC clause is BY-NC-SA (attribution-noncommercial-share alike), a copyright authorization procedure is entered and step S202 is performed”), as the rights information related to the second content (Chen: paragraph [0123], “In terms of a derivative work, the copyright application-related information of the cited work is the copyright application-related information of the to-be-authorized work” i.e., the information for the derivative work is copied from the cited work), information indicating that distribution of the second content is permitted (Chen: paragraph [0123], “The copyright application-related information of the to-be-authorized work includes … a CC clause”; paragraph [0006], “Share alike (Share Alike, SA for short): An original work is allowed to be altered, but must be published by using a same license” i.e., an altered original work may be published).
Regarding claim 5, Chen teaches the information processing apparatus according to claim 1,
wherein the circuitry acquires, as the rights information pre-assigned to the first content (Chen: paragraph [0091], “the copyright authorization management system finds that authorization of the owner of copyright is required for the cited work, so as to trigger a copyright authorization procedure for the copyright authorization management system”; paragraph [0120], “After the copyright authorization management apparatus completes check of the copyright registration request, if the cited work needs to be authorized, … The copyright authorization management apparatus queries the block chain…and obtains corresponding owner-of-copyright information”), information related to each right holder having a copyright related to the first content (Chen: paragraph [0106], “When there are a plurality of owners of copyright, the owner-of-copyright information includes addresses of all the owners of copyright”), and
wherein the circuitry assigns, as the rights information related to the second content (Chen: paragraph [0174], “FIG. 16 shows an example of a data structure of a copyright registration transaction for a derivative work”), the information related to each right holder having the copyright related to the first content (Chen: FIG. 16, URL of a valid contract file are included in the copyright registration transaction for the derivative work; paragraph [0155], “FIG. 12 shows an example of a data structure of a valid contract transaction… The output content includes an address of an authorized person … may further include owner-of-copyright information”) together with information related to each right holder having a copyright related to the second content (Chen: paragraph [0119], “the CC clause of the cited work indicates that authorization is required, for example, the CC clause is BY-NC-SA (attribution-noncommercial-share alike), a copyright authorization procedure is entered and step S202 is performed”; paragraph [0123], “In terms of a derivative work, the copyright application-related information of the cited work is the copyright application-related information of the to-be-authorized work” i.e., the information for the derivative work is copied from the cited work; paragraph [0123], “The copyright application-related information of the to-be-authorized work includes … a CC clause”; paragraph [0006], “Share alike (Share Alike, SA for short): An original work is allowed to be altered, but must be published by using a same license”).
Re. claims 16-17, they recite analogous limitations as claim 1 and therefore are rejected for the same reasons.
References Cited
Gaidar et al. (USP App Pub 2018/0068091; hereinafter Gaidar) is cited to show that it is common knowledge and well known in the prior art that copyright information written to a blockchain is in a form of metadata (Gaidar: paragraph [0088], “Metadata 210 may also include copyright policy settings 230”; paragraph [0061], “Adam set the copyright policy settings to allow all others to modify and share that picture without restrictions … and miner 80 added the corresponding policy settings to DRM blockchain 82 as “copyright policy settings””; paragraph [0094], “client DRM engine may register those changes in metadata that is saved in a DRM blockchain”) and that metadata may be data about content that is separate from the content (Gaidar: FIG. 4, Meta Data 210 includes copyright policy settings 230 and may be separate from New content 47. Meta data 210 is associated with content identifier 270; paragraph [0086], “content identifier 270 to uniquely identify new content 47”).
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 ADITYA SRIRAM whose telephone number is (703)756-1715. The examiner can normally be reached Su-Sa: 9:00 AM - 11:59 AM PST and 1:00 PM - 8 PM PST.
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, William Korzuch can be reached at (571) 272-7589. 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.
/A.S./ Examiner, Art Unit 2491
/WILLIAM R KORZUCH/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2491