Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/705,568

METHOD FOR TRACKING DISTRIBUTION OF A SHARED DIGITAL MEDIA FILE

Non-Final OA §103§112
Filed
Apr 28, 2024
Examiner
SAINT CYR, JEAN D
Art Unit
2425
Tech Center
2400 — Computer Networks
Assignee
BLACKBIRD PLC
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
60%
Grant Probability
Moderate
1-2
OA Rounds
3y 5m
To Grant
68%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 60% of resolved cases
60%
Career Allow Rate
355 granted / 590 resolved
+2.2% vs TC avg
Moderate +8% lift
Without
With
+8.3%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 5m
Avg Prosecution
39 currently pending
Career history
629
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
5.2%
-34.8% vs TC avg
§103
69.9%
+29.9% vs TC avg
§102
9.6%
-30.4% vs TC avg
§112
5.7%
-34.3% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 590 resolved cases

Office Action

§103 §112
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 . Claims rejection-35 U.S.C. 112(b): 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. Claims 10; 18-19 are 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 claims 10; 18-19, the phrase "for example; such as" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). Objections to the claims Claims 63-64 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Claims rejection-35 U.S.C. 103 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. Claim(s) 1-7; 10; 12; 14; 16-18; 25; 29-30; 66; 68 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McCoy(US.Pub.No.20150143442) in view of Goldston(US.Pub.No.20210248214) . Regarding claim 1, McCoy et al disclose a computer-implemented method for tracking distribution of a shared digital media file, the method including the steps of. (i) making a digital media file available at a server to a plurality of users, each user of the plurality of users having a respective registered account at the server(see fig.1 to fig.9 for making video contents available in a social network server to allow users to share video contents among them; 0106-0107); receiving from a first user having a respective registered account at the server a request to share the digital media file with a second user having a respective registered account at the server(see fig.1 to fig.9 for allowing a user being registered to the network to send request to share video contents with other users or friends having account in the social network or subscribe to the network; 0013;0020;0124); sending a first link from the server to the second user, for accessing the digital media file, the first link including data uniquely identifying the digital media file, the first user and the second user; (iv) the server receiving a selection of the first link by the second user(the system allows the server to send URL to a second user associated with a second user device and the second user may provide response to the server based on the received URL;0103;0107;0115;0052;0076); (v) the server sending or playing the digital media file to the second user(see fig.1 to fig.9 for allowing the content server 32 to provide video content to the second device 38; 0078;0107-0108). But did not explicitly disclose (iii) (vi) the server recording that the digital media file was shared by the first user with the second user, to track distribution of the digital media file. However, Goldston et al disclose the server recording that the digital media file was shared by the first user with the second user, to track distribution of the digital media file(the system is able to keep track regarding media contents; 0011; 0051; 0055-0056;0091). It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Goldston to modify McCoy by providing options to track video contents being presented or viewed for the purpose of monitoring viewing history accordingly. Regarding claim 2, McCoy et al disclose wherein the first link is a Uniform Resource Locator (URL)(the system provides content URL; abstract; 0011-0012; 0077;0107). Regarding claim 3, McCoy et al disclose wherein the digital media file is a digital video file, or a digital image file or a digital audio file(0049; 0064;0082). Regarding claim 4, McCoy et al disclose wherein step (ii) includes using a first user web-based media player including a respective web-based media player user interface, and steps (iii), ('v) and (v) include using a second user web-based media player including a respective web-based media player user interface(the system is able to provide web browser for allowing users to access video contents from the internet; 0013; 0020; 0066;0097). Regarding claim 5, McCoy et al disclose wherein the web-based media players provide sharing of the digital media file, without requiring re-rendering(the system allows users to preview URL; abstract; 0012; 0014;00220). Regarding claim 6, McCoy et al disclose wherein the web-based media players permit clipping content prior to sharing clipped content of the digital media file(the system can provide clips of video contents to be shared among friends or group of users in social network; 882). Regarding claim 7, it is rejected using the same ground of rejection for claim 6. Regarding claim 10, McCoy et al disclose wherein the web-based media players user interfaces include buttons selectable to select a monetary value, or wherein the web-based media players user interfaces include buttons selectable to select player features such as play the digital media file on a full screen; play the digital media file in a window; change video playback size; change video playback resolution; share the digital media file or share a clip of the digital media file(the system provides options to send request to share media content via user interface; 0013;0027). Regarding claim 12, McCoy et al disclose wherein the web-based media players user interfaces include navigation controls and/or playback controls, or wherein the web-based media players user interfaces include buttons for playback at various speeds backwards and forwards, marking start and end points of clips (which may alternatively be achieved via interaction with the video area), single step (or larger jumps) backwards and forwards, jog and shuttle on a navigation bar(the system provides options to users to navigate using the web browser; 0047; 0051;0067; 0078; 0081). Regarding claim 14, McCoy et al disclose wherein the web-based media players user interfaces run in JavaScript in a respective web browser, or wherein the web-based media players user interfaces include one or more of: frame accurate access, a choice of playback speeds backwards and forwards, jog and shuttle, a choice of frame size and resolution, including full screen, as well as clipping options, sharing options and payment options(the system provides JavaScript protocol; 0071-0072; 0081). Regarding claim 16, it is rejected using the same ground of rejection for claim 1. Regarding claim 17, McCoy et al disclose wherein the rights and payment metadata associated with each digital media file are represented by a unique random string attached to the URL(the system can assign a unique identifier to a URL; 0052). Regarding claim 18, McCoy et al did not explicitly disclose wherein the unique random string is used as a key in a key: value dictionary, where the value contains all the information required to track rights, for example, the ids of the Creator and all subsequent rights holders, the share of income rights purchased by each rights holder, the date of expiry of any rights. However, Goldston et al disclose wherein the unique random string is used as a key in a key: value dictionary, where the value contains all the information required to track rights, for example, the ids of the Creator and all subsequent rights holders, the share of income rights purchased by each rights holder, the date of expiry of any rights(the system is able to manage ownership rights associated with media content payment due to owners; 0122; abstract; 0012; 0066). It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Goldston to modify McCoy by providing options to track video contents being presented or viewed for the purpose of monitoring viewing history accordingly. Regarding claim 19, McCoy et al did not explicitly disclose (a) wherein the server supports a payment system, such as Stripe or direct credit card receipts, to allow money to be credited to the accounts of individual users, for example if they have insufficient funds to contribute the amount on a button they pushed: or (b) wherein each time a new digital media file is published, its metadata contains one or more financial values, which are assigned to buttons displayed in the web-based media player user interface; or (c) wherein each time a new digital media file is published, its metadata contains one or more financial values, which are assigned to buttons displayed in the web-based media player user interface, and wherein each time someone clicks on one of these buttons, money or tokens representing value are deducted from the viewer’s account and assigned to the accounts of the people along the distribution chain, including to the account of the original Creator, and to the server provider itself. However, Goldston et al disclose (a) wherein the server supports a payment system, such as Stripe or direct credit card receipts, to allow money to be credited to the accounts of individual users, for example if they have insufficient funds to contribute the amount on a button they pushed: or (b) wherein each time a new digital media file is published, its metadata contains one or more financial values, which are assigned to buttons displayed in the web-based media player user interface; or (c) wherein each time a new digital media file is published, its metadata contains one or more financial values, which are assigned to buttons displayed in the web-based media player user interface, and wherein each time someone clicks on one of these buttons, money or tokens representing value are deducted from the viewer’s account and assigned to the accounts of the people along the distribution chain, including to the account of the original Creator, and to the server provider itself(the system is able to manage payment transaction in order to share profit or revenue to owners of the media contents or creators of media contents; 0051;0122; 0215-0216; 0138). It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Goldston to modify McCoy by providing options to track video contents being presented or viewed for the purpose of monitoring viewing history accordingly. Regarding claim 25, McCoy et al did not explicitly disclose (a) wherein the server allows a content Creator to set a player configuration, which includes the option of one or more payment buttons: or (b) wherein every time a payment is made by a viewer, the content Creator receives a share of this payment; or (c) wherein the content creator receives a share of any payments received on re-shared or clipped and shared media derived from the content creator’s original work: or (d) wherein the content creator receives a share of any payments received on re-shared or clipped and shared media derived from the content creator’s original work, and in which the receipts match the proportion of income received from payments for the original video. However, Goldston et al disclose (a) wherein the server allows a content Creator to set a player configuration, which includes the option of one or more payment buttons: or (b) wherein every time a payment is made by a viewer, the content Creator receives a share of this payment; or (c) wherein the content creator receives a share of any payments received on re-shared or clipped and shared media derived from the content creator’s original work: or (d) wherein the content creator receives a share of any payments received on re-shared or clipped and shared media derived from the content creator’s original work, and in which the receipts match the proportion of income received from payments for the original video(the system provides options to share payments among owners; 0051;0122;0215). It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Goldston to modify McCoy by providing options to track video contents being presented or viewed for the purpose of monitoring viewing history accordingly. Regarding claim 29, McCoy et al did not explicitly disclose wherein step (vi) is performed, without using a blockchain. However, Goldston et al disclose wherein step (vi) is performed, without using a blockchain(the system can use any ledger technology to track media contents being viewed; 0142;0201;0206). It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Goldston to modify McCoy by providing options to track video contents being presented or viewed for the purpose of monitoring viewing history accordingly. Regarding claim 30, McCoy et al did not explicitly disclose wherein step (vi) is performed, by storing the first link including the data uniquely identifying the digital media file, the first user and the second user, or wherein in step (iii) the data uniquely identifying the digital media file, the first user and the second user is encrypted, and wherein in step (iv) the encrypted data uniquely identifying the digital media file, the first user and the second user is decrypted. However, Goldston et al disclose wherein step (vi) is performed, by storing the first link including the data uniquely identifying the digital media file, the first user and the second user, or wherein in step (iii) the data uniquely identifying the digital media file, the first user and the second user is encrypted, and wherein in step (iv) the encrypted data uniquely identifying the digital media file, the first user and the second user is decrypted(the system provides options to encrypt data and decrypt data; 0142;0207;0120;0105;0080;0217). It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Goldston to modify McCoy by providing options to encrypt video contents and decrypt video contents for the purpose of making the system safer against unauthorized users or viewers accordingly. Regarding claim 66, it is rejected using the same ground of rejection for claim 1. Regarding claim 68, it is rejected using the same ground of rejection for claim 1. Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McCoy(US.Pub.No.20150143442) in view of Goldston(US.Pub.No.20210248214) and Canetti(US.Pub.No.20140282069). Regarding claim 8, McCoy and Goldston et al did not explicitly disclose wherein the web-based media players permit re-clipping content prior to sharing re-clipped content of the digital media file, or wherein the web-based media players permit re-clipping content prior to sharing re-clipped content of the digital media file, without requiring re-rendering. However, Canetti et al disclose wherein the web-based media players permit re-clipping content prior to sharing re-clipped content of the digital media file, or wherein the web-based media players permit re-clipping content prior to sharing re-clipped content of the digital media file, without requiring re-rendering(the system provides options to users to reclip media contents; 0052). It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Canetti to modify McCoy and Goldston by providing options to reclip media contents for the purpose of improving viewing experiences accordingly. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JEAN D SAINT CYR whose telephone number is (571)270-3224. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5. 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, Brian Pendleton can be reached at 5712727527. 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. /JEAN D SAINT CYR/Examiner, Art Unit 2425 /Brian T Pendleton/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2425
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Apr 28, 2024
Application Filed
Nov 10, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103, §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12604245
Data Caching Method and Related Apparatus
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12604064
METHOD AND SERVER FOR PROVIDING CONTENT RECOMMENDATION LIST
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12604069
SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR MEDIA PLAN GENERATION FOR A CONTENT DELIVERY NETWORK
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12585333
SYSTEMS AND METHOD FOR PROVIDING VIDEO ON DEMAND IN AN INTELLIGENT TELEVISION
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12563248
REDUCING ACTIVE USER BIAS FOR CONTENT RECOMMENDATION MODELS
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 24, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
60%
Grant Probability
68%
With Interview (+8.3%)
3y 5m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 590 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month