DETAILED ACTION
1. This communication is in response to the Application filed on 6/28/2024. Claims 1-20 are pending and have been examined.
Allowable Subject Matter
2. Claims 3-4, 6, 12, 15-16, 19-20 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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.
3. Claims 1-2, 5, 13-14, 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grevers, et al. (US 20150163561; hereinafter GREVERS) in view of Alakoye, et al. (US 20190294630; hereinafter ALAKOYE).
As per claim 1, GREVERS (Title: Context Aware Geo-Targeted Advertisement in a Communication Session) discloses “A content management system, the system comprising: a processing device; a non-transitory storage device containing instructions when executed by the processing device, causes the processing device to perform the steps of: retrieving content from a first storage device, wherein the content comprises audio data; transforming, using a speech recognition engine, the audio data into text data; [ receiving a first selection, wherein the first selection identifies the content ]; retrieving the text data corresponding to the content from the first storage device; identifying keywords from the text data; and streaming the content (GREVERS, [Abstract], capturing audio containing speech at an endpoint device, converting the audio into corresponding text <read on ‘a speech recognition engine’>, identifying one or more keywords from the corresponding text .. supplied as input to a geo-targeting advertisement service <read on ‘content management’> .. to identify relevant content .. provides one or more advertisements to an endpoint device for display; [0005], FIG. 3A is an illustration of keyword selection, with selected keywords subsequently provided to a geo-targeting advertising service; [0015], convert the audio stream .. into keywords .. for the selection of real-time context aware advertisements; [0041], The advertisement may .. present them with streaming media corresponding to the advertisement).”
GREVERS does not explicitly disclose “receiving a first selection, wherein the first selection identifies the content ..” However, the limitations are taught by ALAKOYE (Title: Real-time audio stream search and presentation system).
In the same field of endeavor, ALAKOYE teaches: [Abstract] “The service will cause the client device to output user-selectable fields, each of which includes information corresponding to he selected text segments in a user-selectable interface by which a user may select the audio content sources for each of the text segments. When a user selects one of the fields, a media player of the client device will access and play audio content that the audio content source is transmitting at the time” and [0014] “FIG. 8 .. a user may select a candidate audio content source to be played on a client device” and [0022] “to instruct the engine to receive audio streams from selected audio sources, analyze the streams in real time as they are received.”
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of ALAKOYE in the system (as taught by GREVERS) for user selection of audio content to be streamed to playback devices.
As per claim 2 (dependent on claim 1), GREVERS in view of ALAKOYE further discloses “determining a status of the streaming of the content, wherein determining occurs at a predetermined interval subsequent an initiating of the stream of the content; and determining a presence metric of the stream of the content based on activity at each predetermined interval, wherein the presence metric increases for each subsequent interval for which the content is streamed (GREVERS, [0041], The advertisement may .. present them with streaming media corresponding to the advertisement. A user has the option to close an advertisement at any time. Additionally, overlay advertisements may be accessible (remain on-screen) for a given period of time after completion of the video communication session <read on content streaming ‘status .. activity’ as well as ‘presence metric’ which is subject to BRI such as the time duration the advertisement has been streamed>).”
As per claim 5 (dependent on claim 1), GREVERS in view of ALAKOYE further discloses “querying a second storage device for a supplemental content using the keywords identified from the text data; determining a relevant supplemental content; retrieving the supplemental content from the storage device of the system; transmitting the supplemental content; and presenting the supplemental content (GREVERS, [Abstract], identifying one or more keywords from the corresponding text .. supplied as input to a geo-targeting advertisement service .. to identify relevant content <read on ‘querying storage device for .. relevant supplemental content’> .. provides one or more advertisements <read on ‘receiving .. transmitting the supplemental content’> to an endpoint device for display).”
Claims 13-14 (similar in scope to claims 1-2, respectively) are rejected under the same rationales as applied above for claims 1-2, respectively.
Claims 17-18 (similar in scope to claims 1-2, respectively) are rejected under the same rationales as applied above for claims 1-2, respectively.
4. Claims 8-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over GREVERS in view of ALAKOYE, and further in view of Bhargava (Management Science, 2022; hereinafter BHARGAVA).
As per claim 8 (dependent on claim 5), GREVERS in view of ALAKOYE further discloses “[ receiving interaction data with the supplemental content, wherein the interaction data comprises an order identifier and an order timestamp, and a content identifier; and determining a content identifier and a supplemental content identifier, wherein the content identifier and the supplemental content identifier are associated with the order identifier ].”
GREVERS in view of ALAKOYE does not explicitly disclose “receiving interaction data with the supplemental content, wherein the interaction data comprises an order identifier and an order timestamp, and a content identifier; and determining a content identifier and a supplemental content identifier, wherein the content identifier and the supplemental content identifier are associated with the order identifier.” However, the limitations are taught by BHARGAVA (Title: The Creator Economy: Managing Ecosystem Supply, Revenue Sharing, and Platform Design).
In the same field of endeavor, BHARGAVA teaches: [Abstract] “Many digital platforms give users a bundle of goods sourced from numerous creators, generate revenue through consumption of these goods, and motivate creators by sharing of revenue ..” where “goods .. consumption ..” read on the associated “content .. interaction data .. order identifier .. order timestamp .. content identifier ..” and even the creators’ identifiers for revenue sharing.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of BHARGAVA in the system (as taught by GREVERS and ALAKOYE) for a ready and well-known mechanism/practice for contents/goods stocking, advertisement, customer interaction and sales/receipts, and so on (SPEC [00117] “an order timestamp (i.e., a time and date code for when the purchase was made, or when the order identifier was generated) ..”
As per claim 9 (dependent on claim 4), GREVERS in view of ALAKOYE further discloses “[ transferring electronic resources to at least one content owner of the content, wherein each of the at least one content owner of the content receives a predetermined percentage of the electronic resources based on the engagement score ].”
GREVERS in view of ALAKOYE does not explicitly disclose “transferring electronic resources to at least one content owner of the content, wherein each of the at least one content owner of the content receives a predetermined percentage of the electronic resources based on the engagement score.” However, the limitations are taught by BHARGAVA (Title: The Creator Economy: Managing Ecosystem Supply, Revenue Sharing, and Platform Design).
In the same field of endeavor, BHARGAVA teaches: [Abstract] “Many digital platforms give users a bundle of goods sourced from numerous creators, generate revenue through consumption of these goods, and motivate creators by sharing of revenue <where revenue reads on ‘electronic resources’ which is subject to BRI - see SPEC [0033-0035], and ‘engagement score’ reads on the creators’ contributions>” and [Introduction, para 3] “The platform earns advertising revenue .. and returns a fraction γ to creators with each creator receiving a share proportional to their contribution.”
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of BHARGAVA in the system (as taught by GREVERS and ALAKOYE) for a ready and well-known mechanism/practice to share revenue proportionately with content creators’ contributions.
As per claim 10 (dependent on claim 5), GREVERS in view of ALAKOYE further discloses “[transferring electronic resources from an account of a content owner of the supplemental content to at least one content owner of the content, wherein each of the at least one content owner of the content receives a predetermined percentage of the electronic resources ].”
GREVERS in view of ALAKOYE does not explicitly disclose “transferring electronic resources from an account of a content owner of the supplemental content to at least one content owner of the content, wherein each of the at least one content owner of the content receives a predetermined percentage of the electronic resources.” However, the limitations are taught by BHARGAVA (Title: The Creator Economy: Managing Ecosystem Supply, Revenue Sharing, and Platform Design).
In the same field of endeavor, BHARGAVA teaches: [Abstract] “Many digital platforms give users a bundle of goods sourced from numerous creators, generate revenue through consumption of these goods, and motivate creators by sharing of revenue <where revenue reads on ‘electronic resources’ which is subject to BRI - see SPEC [0033-0035]>” and [Introduction, para 3] “The platform earns advertising revenue .. and returns a fraction γ to creators with each creator receiving a share proportional to their contribution.”
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of BHARGAVA in the system (as taught by GREVERS and ALAKOYE) for a ready and well-known mechanism/practice to share revenue proportionately with content creators’ contributions.
As per claim 11 (dependent on claim 8), GREVERS in view of ALAKOYE further discloses “transferring electronic resources from an account of a content owner of the supplemental content associated with the supplemental content identifier to at least one content owner of the content associated with the content identifier, wherein each of the at least one content owner of the content receives a predetermined percentage of the electronic resources (BHARGAVA, [Abstract], Many digital platforms give users a bundle of goods sourced from numerous creators, generate revenue through consumption of these goods, and motivate creators by sharing of revenue <where revenue reads on ‘electronic resources’ which is subject to BRI - see SPEC [0033-0035]>; [Introduction, para 3], The platform earns advertising revenue .. and returns a fraction γ to creators with each creator receiving a share proportional to their contribution).”
5. Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over GREVERS in view of ALAKOYE and BHARGAVA, and further in view of Ishtiaq (IJAMEC, 2017 hereinafter ISHTIAQ).
As per claim 7 (dependent on claim 5), GREVERS in view of ALAKOYE further discloses “receiving interaction data with the supplemental content; [ applying cookie data ]; and determining, using the cookie data, if [ a transfer of electronic resources has occurred as a result of the supplemental content ].”
GREVERS in view of ALAKOYE does not explicitly disclose “a transfer of electronic resources has occurred as a result of the supplemental content ..” However, the limitations are taught by BHARGAVA – see Claims 9-11.
GREVERS in view of ALAKOYE and BHAGAVA does not explicitly disclose “applying cookie data ..” However, the limitations are taught by ISHTIAQ (Title: User tracking mechanisms and counter-measures).
In the same field of endeavor, ISHTIAQ teaches: [sec. 2.2, para 1 – sec. 2.3, para 1] “Stateful tracking is cookie based tracking mechanism. Websites exploit cookies data for tracking users .. The main purpose of these cookies is to remember stateful information for example products added in the shopping cart and for remembering data entered into form-fields like name, address, and passwords. With the help of HTTP cookies, the server is able to store and retrieve data on the client side.”
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of ISHTIAQ in the system (as taught by GREVERS, ALAKOYE and BHARGAVA) for tracking user’s actions such as interaction with certain contents for any purpose such as determining revenue sharing to content contributors.
Conclusion
6. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FENG-TZER TZENG whose telephone number is 571-272-4609. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F (9:00-5:00). The fax phone number where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-4609.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Paras Shah (SPE) can be reached on 571-270-1650.
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.
/FENG-TZER TZENG/ 12/31/2025
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2653