DETAILED ACTION
The following FINAL Office action is in response to Amendment filed on November 20, 2025 for application 18769475
Acknowledgements
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Claims 1-20 have been examined.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after December 13, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
In response to the Applicant’s arguments under 35 USC 101, Applicant argues that the amended independent claims provide a technical solution to a technical problem of how to increase efficiency, safety, and security of an online platform for exchanging media content, especially media content that is uploaded and received in real time, such as breaking news, among content producers and content publishers and the claimed invention also allows reviewing the media content, including the text, image and/or the video content therein, for detecting and tracking any current or even future plagiarism of the media content. Applicant further argues that the amended independent claims 1, 15, and 20 are not directed to an abstract idea as claim 1 is directed to a method for publishing media content via a media brokering system that includes one or more content producer devices, content publisher devices and an online media brokering platform that communicates with the content producer devices and the content publisher devices over a network and the claimed method provides various technical components and technical steps that are performed to provide a secure platform for exchanging media content, especially, the media content that is captured and uploaded in real-time on the platform. Applicant also argues that the claimed invention performs numerous technical steps, such as allow content producers to generate media content, such as capture flash news or breaking news from anywhere and upload it to the platform in real time; display a real-time feed on the interface displayed on publisher devices; restrict the interfaces on publisher devices to only registered publishers to prevent unauthorized access to such media content that is provided in real-time, and detecting, tracking, and thwarting any instances of plagiarism of the media content using the anti-plagiarism tool. Lastly, Applicant argues that the claim steps can are clearly technical in nature that can only be performed using technical components of the media brokering system and the online media brokering platform.
In response to the Applicant’s arguments under 35 USC 101, Examiner respectfully disagrees as the amended claims are still reciting and directed to the concept of bringing buyers and sellers in a marketplace to exchange content grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas classified under “fundamental economic principles or practices”, specifically “mitigating risk” as part of a transaction to exchange content safely and securely. The amended claim limitations recite multiple concepts such as enabling a transaction or providing a marketplace between a content producer and a content publisher to exchange content that is uploaded and received in real time, providing security to the content, obtaining rights to a publication item and analyzing or reviewing the media content to detect or track plagiarism. Also, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because after analysis of the claim steps, the additional elements of the claims such as the use of a media brokering system including one or more content producer devices, one or more content publisher devices, an online media brokering platform, anti-plagiarism tool and a publication channel merely involve using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. The usage of the elements recited in the claim does not render the claim patent eligible because it requires no more than a computer performing functions that correspond to acts required to carry out the abstract idea. Applicant mentioned “the claim steps can are clearly technical in nature that can only be performed using technical components of the media brokering system and the online media brokering platform”. Also, the amended limitation “review, using an anti-plagiarism tool, each of the one or more media content received from the registered content producer devices to detect and track plagiarism of each of the text, image and video content therein to prohibit unauthorized re-publication of the media content” does little to provide an improvement to the technology as media content is being reviewed using an anti-plagiarism tool further describing the usage of additional elements to implement the abstract idea. Also, the underlined limitation “review, using an anti-plagiarism tool, each of the one or more media content received from the registered content producer devices to detect and track plagiarism of each of the text, image and video content therein to prohibit unauthorized re-publication of the media content” merely describes the intended use of the anti-plagiarism tool and each of the one or more media content received from the registered content producer devices and according to the MPEP (2103 I C, 2114 IV) such language does not have patentable weight.
Applicant’s arguments are moot under new grounds of rejection.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
In the instant case, claims 1-14 are directed to a method, claims 15-19 are directed to a system and claim 20 is directed to a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium. Therefore, these claims fall within the four statutory categories of invention.
The claims recite bringing buyers and sellers in a marketplace to exchange content which is an abstract idea. Specifically, the claim recites “registering one or more content producers and one or more content publishers; receiving a completed electronic contract from the one or more content producers and the content publishers following a registration request from the respective one or more content producers and the content publisher device; validating a registration of the one or more of the content producers and the content publishers based on a predefined criteria, in response to receiving the completed electronic contract from the corresponding one or more of the content producers and the content publishers; and storing the registration of the one or more of the content producers and the content publisher devices in a client database upon a successful validation of the registration of the corresponding one or more of the content producers and the content publishers; receiving one or more media content to be published from one or more of the registered content producers, the one or more media content including media content uploaded by the one or more registered content producers in real-time; receiving an access request from at least one of the registered content publishers for accessing at least one media content, the access request including a proposed price being offered by the registered content publisher for the at least one media content, wherein prior to receiving the access request, display is limited to registered publishers only and includes at least a feed revealing one or more of a preview or details associated with the media content uploaded in real-time, thereby revealing the feed only to registered publishers prior to receiving the access request and prohibiting access to the content, preview and details associated with the media content received in real-time to unregistered publishers; establishing a communication session between one of the one or more registered content producers associated with the at least one media content for which the access request is received and the corresponding at least one content publisher requesting the access to facilitate a transaction of the at least one media content, the communication session being established in response to an affirmation received from the content producer associated with the at least one media content, for the access request received from the corresponding at least one content publisher; allocating a publication right for the at least one media content to the at least one content publisher associated with the at least one content publisher based on one or more criteria defined in the established communication session; and publishing by the at least one content publisher the at least one media content in response to the allocated publication right to the at least one content publisher, reviewing each of the one or more media content received from the registered content producer to detect and track plagiarism of each of the text, image and video content therein to prohibit unauthorized re-publication of the media content.” which is grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas in prong one of step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test, classified under “fundamental economic principles or practices”, specifically “mitigating risk” as part of a transaction to exchange content safely and securely (See MPEP 2106, specifically 2106.04(a)) because – for example, in this case, the claims involve a series of steps for enabling a transaction or providing a marketplace between a content producer and a content publisher to exchange content, obtain rights to a publication items and analyze or review the media content, including the text, image and/or the video content. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea (See MPEP 2106, specifically 2106.04(a)).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because, when analyzed under prong two of step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test (See MPEP 2106.04(d)), the additional elements of the claims such as the use of a media brokering system including one or more content producer devices, one or more content publisher devices, an online media brokering platform, anti-plagiarism tool and a publication channel merely involves using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea and/or generally links the use of a media brokering system including one or more content producer devices, one or more content publisher devices, an online media brokering platform, anti-plagiarism tool and a publication channel to implement the abstract idea and does not render the claim patent eligible because it requires no more than a computer performing functions that correspond to acts required to carry out the abstract idea. Specifically, the media brokering system including one or more content producer devices, one or more content publisher devices, an online media brokering platform, anti-plagiarism tool and a publication channel perform the steps or functions of Claim 1. The additional claim elements are not indicative of integration into a practical application, because the claims do not involve improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field (MPEP 2106.05(a)), the claims do not apply the abstract idea with, or by use of, a particular machine (MPEP 2106.05(b)), the claims do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (MPEP 2106.05(c)), and the claims do not apply or use the abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP 2106.05(e) and Vanda Memo). Therefore, the claims do not, for example, purport to improve the functioning of a computer. Nor do they effect an improvement in any other technology or technical field. Accordingly, the additional elements do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when analyzed under step 2B of the Alice/Mayo test (See MPEP 2106, specifically 2106.05), the additional elements of a media brokering system including one or more content producer devices, one or more content publisher devices, an online media brokering platform, anti-plagiarism tool and a publication channel to automate and/or implement the abstract idea of bringing buyers and sellers in a marketplace to exchange content. As discussed above, taking the claim elements separately the media brokering system including one or more content producer devices, one or more content publisher devices, an online media brokering platform, anti-plagiarism tool and a publication channel perform the steps of Claim 1. These functions correspond to the actions required to perform the abstract idea. Viewed as a whole, the combination of elements recited in the claims merely recite the concept of bringing buyers and sellers in a marketplace to exchange content. Therefore, the use of these additional elements does no more than employ the computer as a tool to automate and/or implement the abstract idea. The use of a media brokering system including one or more content producer devices, one or more content publisher devices, an online media brokering platform, anti-plagiarism tool and a publication channel to merely automate and/or implement the abstract idea cannot provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself (MPEP 2106.05(I)(A)(f) & (h)). Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claims describe the details on how to give access to the media content and details on how to analyze media content such as via tools and determining the ranking of the content. The dependent claims recite additional elements such as “anti-plagiarism tool”, however, they do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or that provide significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, the dependent claims are also not patent eligible.
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 1-4, 7-8, 10-11, 13-17 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(b) as being unpatentable over Allaire, et al. (US 7,925,973 B2) in view of Ginter et al. (5,892,900) in view of Governale et al. (US 10,439,831 B1) in view of Tayebi et al. (US 2008/0071685 A1) and in further view of Myslinski (US 8,185,448 B1).
Regarding Claims 1, 15 and 20, Allaire discloses a method for publishing media content via a media brokering system, the media brokering system including one or more content producer devices, one or more content publisher devices, and an online media brokering platform communicating with the one or more content producer devices and the one or more content publisher devices over a network, the method comprising:
registering, by the online media brokering platform via a server application, one or more content producers via the respective content producer devices and one or more content publishers via the respective content publisher devices, the registering including: (Col. 5 lines 44-55, Col. 8 lines 58- 66 “Using the publisher console 20, a publisher 22 registers with the service platform 30, which in turn assigns a unique publisher identification number to the publisher 22”, Col. 31 lines 53-65)
receiving, by the online media brokering platform via the server application, a completed electronic contract from the one or more content producer devices and the content publisher devices following a registration request from the respective one or more content producer devices and the content publisher devices (Col. 5 lines 10-21, Col. 27 lines 47-64)
validating, by the online media brokering platform, a registration of the one or more of the content producer devices and the content publisher devices, based on a predefined criteria, in response to receiving the completed electronic contract from the corresponding one or more of the content producer devices and the content publisher devices (Col. 20 lines 40-53 and Col. 20 lines 58-62)
storing, by the online media brokering platform, the registration of the one or more of the content producer devices and the content publisher devices in a client database upon a successful validation of the registration of the corresponding one or more of the content producer devices and the content publisher devices (Col. 21 lines 4-17)
receiving, by the online media brokering platform via the server application, one or more media content to be published from one or more of the registered content producer devices (Col. 3 lines 24-31, Col. 41 lines 5-13, Col. 42 lines 1-29)
receiving, by the online media brokering platform via the server application, an access request from at least one of the registered content publisher devices for accessing at least one media content, the access request including a proposed price being offered by the registered content publisher device for the at least one media content, wherein prior to receiving the access request, an interface corresponding to the server application displayed on each of the one or more registered content publisher devices is limited to registered publishers only and [includes at least a feed revealing one or more of a preview or details associated with the media content uploaded in real-time], thereby revealing the feed only to registered publishers prior to receiving the access request and [prohibiting access to the content, preview and details associated with the media content received in real-time to unregistered publishers] (Col. 10 lines 1-19, Col. 15 lines 50-65, Col. 18 lines 10-57)
establishing, by the online media brokering platform via the server application, a communication session between one of the one or more registered content producer devices associated with the at least one media content for which the access request is received and the corresponding at least one content publisher device requesting the access to facilitate a transaction of the at least one media content, the communication session being established in response to an affirmation received, by the online media brokering platform via the server application, from the content producer device associated with the at least one media content, for the access request received from the corresponding at least one content publisher device (Col. 9 lines 12-34)
allocating, by the online media brokering platform, a publication right for the at least one media content to the at least one content publisher associated with the at least one content publisher device based on one or more criteria defined in the established communication session (Col. 9 lines 21-33, Col. 10 lines 1-19, Col. 12 lines 35-66)
publishing, by the at least one content publisher device via a publication channel, the at least one media content in response to the allocated publication right to the at least one content publisher device (Col. 6 lines 45-50, Col. 19 line 62-Col. 20 line 12, Col. 20 line 58-Col. 21 line 17)
Allaire does not disclose prohibiting access to the media content.
Ginter however discloses prohibiting access to the media content (Fig 78; Col 280 lines 22-26, Col 281 lines 22-45; Col. 307 lines 31-56; 309, lines 25-55; 314/62-315/2; Col 315 lines 41-48 and 59-67).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the system of Allaire to include prohibiting access to the media content, as disclosed in Ginter, in order to improve the revenue of content providers, lower the distribution costs and the costs for content, better support advertising and usage information gathering, and better satisfy the needs of electronic information users which can also lead to increase in the amount and variety of electronic information (see Ginter Col. 2 lines 1-8).
The combination of Allaire and Ginter does not disclose the one or more media content including media content uploaded to the online media brokering platform by the one or more registered content producer devices in real-time.
Governale however discloses the one or more media content including media content uploaded to the online media brokering platform by the one or more registered content producer devices in real-time (Col. 3 lines 39-45, Col. 10 lines 49-63).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the system of Allaire to include the one or more media content including media content uploaded to the online media brokering platform by the one or more registered content producer devices in real-time, as disclosed in Governale, in order to provide an enterprise media control platform and system that allows to control and manage each viewer's experience in real-time or Live (see Governale Col. 3 lines 4-8).
The combination of Allaire, Ginter and Governale does not specifically disclose [includes at least a feed revealing one or more of a preview or details associated with the media content uploaded in real-time] and [prohibiting access to the content, preview and details associated with the media content received in real-time to unregistered publishers].
Tayebi however discloses: [includes at least a feed revealing one or more of a preview or details associated with the media content uploaded in real-time] and [prohibiting access to the content, preview and details associated with the media content received in real-time to unregistered publishers] (¶0108-¶0109 “a masking effect is placed on an information product such as electronic works, digital works, publications or multimedia works which limits the utility of the information product by rendering it masked, incomplete, inconvenient, and/or lacking information, data, features, etc.”, ¶0113 “a masking effect is placed on an information product and it becomes removable once the customer meets the criteria for gaining access to the information product”, ¶0115-¶0116 , ¶0118 “providing a controlled access to the information product by applying a masking effect so that it can be readily distributed as a preview material”, ¶0126, ¶0171-¶0173 “a mask partially hides a portion of the information product that is displayed on screen or a mask can be a content overlay which is superposed on the displayed region of information product displaying additional electronic content”, ¶0178 “Masking effects are superposed for providing a preview of the
underlying original content”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the system of Allaire to include at least a feed revealing one or more of a preview or details associated with the media content uploaded in real-time] and [prohibiting access to the content, preview and details associated with the media content received in real-time to unregistered publishers, as disclosed in Tayebi, in order to provide a system for distributing an information product or an electronic digital work, of potential commercial value, to a potential receiver, in a masked or reduced utility configuration (see Tayebi ¶0002).
The combination of Allaire, Ginter, Governale and Tayebi does not disclose: reviewing, by the online media brokering platform using an anti-plagiarism tool, each of the one or more media content received from the registered content producer devices to detect and track plagiarism of each of the text, image and video content therein to prohibit unauthorized re-publication of the media content.
Myslinski however discloses: reviewing, by the online media brokering platform using an anti-plagiarism tool, each of the one or more media content received from the registered content producer devices to detect and track plagiarism of each of the text, image and video content therein to prohibit unauthorized re-publication of the media content (Col. 2 lines 55-66, Col. 8 lines 42-66, Col. 12 lines 15-23 “text, images, video and audio”, Col. 41 line 65-67 “the fact checker checks for and indicates defamation, slander, libel, plagiarism, copyright infringement, trademark infringement, patent infringement”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the system of Allaire to include “reviewing, by the online media brokering platform using an anti-plagiarism tool, each of the one or more media content received from the registered content producer devices to detect and track plagiarism of each of the text, image and video content therein to prohibit unauthorized re-publication of the media content”, as disclosed in Myslinski, in order to provide a system that verifies the correctness of information and/or characterizes the information by comparing the information with one or more sources (see Myslinski abstract).
Regarding Claims 2 and 16, Allaire discloses
- enabling, by the online media brokerinq platform via the server application, the one or more content publisher devices registered with the online media brokerinq platform to request creation of the media content for a particular news journalism item (see Allaire Col. 4 lines 59-66)
- providing, by the online media brokerinq platform via the server application, access to the request for creation of the media content for the particular news journalism item to a the one or more content producer devices registered with the online media brokerinq platform to enable the one or more content publisher devices to contract for production of the particular news media item according to one or more specifications, to enable the one or more content publisher devices to have the media content generated using remote independent one or more content producer devices (see Allaire Col. 5 lines 25-32, Col. 5 lines 44-66)
- receiving, by the online media brokerinq platform via the server application, a response from at least one of the one or more content producer devices to produce the media content for the particular news journalism item requested by the one or more content publisher devices (see Allaire Col. 33 lines 49-50, Col. 33 lines 58-67, Col. 34 lines 1-2)
- enabling, by the online media brokering platform via the serverapplication, a transaction transferring the rights to corresponding media content to be performed between respective parties in accordance with the request, to enable the corresponding media content to be transferred between the respective parties (Col. 9 lines 21-33, Col. 33 lines 1-9, Col. 42 lines 13-29)
Regarding Claim 3, Allaire discloses enabling, by the online media brokering platform via the server application, a communication to be established between the one or more content publisher devices requesting the creation of the particular media content and the one or more content producer devices prior to receiving the request (Col. 9 lines 12-34).
Regarding Claim 4, Allaire discloses wherein access to the at least one media content is provided via an option to purchase the at least one media content (Col. 3 lines 24-31, Col. 9 lines 4-33, Col. 41 lines 5-13)
Regarding Claims 7 and 17, Allaire discloses wherein the competitive process for the at least one media content is provided via an auction between the one or more content producer devices and one or more potential purchasers including one or more of the content publisher devices, and wherein the access request is received in association with the auction (Col. 3 lines 24-42).
Regarding Claim 8, the combination of Allaire, Ginter, Governale, Tayebi and Myslinski discloses invention as above.
Ginter further discloses wherein the electronic contract is displayed in a plurality of clauses, each clause requiring a separate corresponding agreement via an input to the online media brokerinq platform (Col. 272 lines 62-67, Col. 273 lines 1-16; Fig. 75E).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the system of Allaire to include wherein the electronic contract is displayed in a plurality of clauses, each clause requiring a separate corresponding agreement via an input to the online media brokerinq platform, as disclosed in Ginter, in order to improve the revenue of content providers, lower the distribution costs and the costs for content, better support advertising and usage information gathering, and better satisfy the needs of electronic information users which can also lead to increase in the amount and variety of electronic information (see Ginter Col. 2 lines 1-8).
Regarding Claim 10, Allaire discloses enabling, by the online media brokering platform via the server application, physical media content to be made available for purchase and be accessible via the online platform (Col. 3 lines 24-31, Col. 9 lines 4-33, Col. 41 lines 5-13).
Regarding Claim 11, Allaire discloses enabling, by the online media brokerinq platform via the server application, a communication to be established between the one or more content producer devices of the at least one media content and a particular one of the one or more content publisher devices prior to receiving the request (Col. 9 lines 12-34).
Regarding Claim 13, the combination of Allaire, Ginter, Governale, Tayebi and Myslinski discloses the invention as shown above.
Governale further discloses determining, by the online media brokering platform, a ranking associated with each of the one or more media content received from the one or more registered content producer devices, the ranking being determined based on one or more of a time and date of receiving the respective media content and a number of times the respective media content has been viewed and previewed by one or more content publisher devices; and displaying, by the online media brokering platform via the server application, the one or more media content based on their associated ranking on the interface corresponding to the server application displayed on each of the one or more registered content publisher devices (Fig. 20-21, Fig. 28; Col. 20 lines 1-19, Col. 21 lines 9-39.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the system of Allaire, Ginter and Tayebi to include determining, by the online media brokering platform, a ranking associated with each of the one or more media content received from the one or more registered content producer devices, the ranking being determined based on one or more of a time and date of receiving the respective media content and a number of times the respective media content has been viewed and previewed by one or more content publisher devices; and displaying, by the online media brokering platform via the server application, the one or more media content based on their associated ranking on the interface corresponding to the server application displayed on each of the one or more registered content publisher devices, as disclosed in Governale, in order to provide an enterprise media control platform and system that allows to control and manage each viewer's experience in real-time or Live (see Governale Col. 3 lines 4-8).
Regarding Claim 14, the combination of Allaire, Ginter, Governale, Tayebi and Myslinski discloses the invention as shown above.
Governale further discloses providing, by the online media brokering platform via the server application, an option to upload the at least one media content and provide a text-based description of the at least one media content as the at least one media content is uploaded (Col. 15 lines 34-45).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the system of Allairevto include providing, by the online media brokering platform via the server application, an to upload the at least one media content and provide a text-based description of the at least one media content as the at least one media content is uploaded, as disclosed in Governale, in order to provide an enterprise media control platform and system that allows to control and manage each viewer's experience in real-time or Live (see Governale Col. 3 lines 4-8).
Claims 5 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Allaire, Ginter, Governale, Tayebi, Myslinski and in further view of Backerding (US 2009/0259564A1).
Regarding Claim 5, the combination of Allaire, Ginter, Governale, Tayebi and Myslinski does not disclose wherein the option to purchase the at least one media content is through syndication of the at least one media content subsequent to an unsuccessful auction.
Backerding however discloses wherein the option to purchase the at least one media content is through syndication of the at least one media content subsequent to an unsuccessful auction (¶0069-¶0072; Fig. 7 380-382, Fig. 8 380).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the system of Allaire to include wherein the option to purchase the at least one media content is through syndication of the at least one media content subsequent to an unsuccessful auction, as disclosed in Backerding, in order to improve the independent marketplace, a virtual platform that will link independent creators and their content directly to interested buyers (see Backerding ¶0004).
Regarding Claim 9, Backerding discloses providing, by the CPST Doc: 390053.1 3Application No: 16/567,475Docket No: 10662/00007 Amendment Dated: November 19, 2021 Reply to Office Action of: August 20, 2021online media brokerinq platform via the server application, access to the at least one media content in a prescheduled live auction hosted by the online media brokering platform (¶0016, ¶0066).
Claims 6 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Allaire, Ginter, Governale, Tayebi and Myslinski and in further view of Narcisse et al (US2012/0226602A1) (“Narcisse”).
Regarding Claims 6 and 18, the combination of Allaire, Ginter, Governale, Tayebi and Myslinski does not disclose enabling, by the online media brokerinq platform via the server application, the one or more content publisher devices to submit a request for proposal (RFP) for the particular media content, wherein one of the one or more content producer devices registered with the online media brokering platform generates the particular media content in accordance with the RFP.
Narcisse however discloses enabling, by the online media brokerinq platform via the server application, the one or more content publisher devices to submit a request for proposal (RFP) for the particular media content, wherein one of the one or more content producer devices registered with the online media brokering platform generates the particular media content in accordance with the RFP (Fig. 6 steps 606, 610, 612-614; ¶0027, ¶0053-¶0058).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the system of Allaire to include enabling, by the online media brokerinq platform via the server application, the one or more content publisher devices to submit a request for proposal (RFP) for the particular media content, wherein one of the one or more content producer devices registered with the online media brokering platform generates the particular media content in accordance with the RFP, as disclosed in Narcisse, in order to improve and provide systems, methods, and computer program products that allow content editors to view geopositional information related to content creators for the purpose of commissioning content creation, assigning work, tracking work, viewing past trends, making decisions about which content creators to engage, and other tasks related to managing content creation (see Narcisse ¶0009).
Claims 12 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Allaire, Ginter, Governale, Tayebi, Myslinski in further view of Venkatesan et al. (US 2002/0172425 A1) (“Venkatesan”).
Regarding Claims 12 and 19, the combination of Allaire, Ginter, Governale, Tayebi and Myslinski does not disclose wherein the anti-plagiarism tool includes a text-based search tool for reviewing media content in text format and an image processing- based tool for reviewing media content in image or video format.
Venkatesan however discloses wherein the anti-plagiarism tool includes a text-based search tool for reviewing media content in text format and an image processing- based tool for reviewing media content in image or video format (¶0049-¶0057, ¶0130-¶0134).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the system of Allaire to include “wherein the anti-plagiarism tool includes a text-based search tool for reviewing media content in text format and an image processing- based tool for reviewing media content in image or video format”, as disclosed in Venkatesan, in order to provide a technology for recognizing the content of text documents that may detect similarity between text-based works in an automatic and accurate manner (see Venkatesan ¶0021).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
a. Stoliartchouk et al., US publication No. 2014/0019267 A1 (“Stoliartchouk”) generally discloses a secure sign-in allowing the publisher to gain access to the system's full capabilities and after being logged-in to the system, the publisher is presented with the option to edit its account information and to manipulate stored publisher account data (See Fig. 9, ¶0027, ¶0094).
b. SHIM, US publication No. 2012/0084144 A1 (“SHIM”) generally discloses that the advertisement application service providing module may permit registered publishers to access and use the advertisement application service to allow the corresponding publishers to sell and manage their own advertisement resources (See ¶0059, ¶0062).
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 ZEHRA RAZA whose telephone number is (571)272-8128. The examiner can normally be reached 10AM-6:30PM.
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, John W Hayes can be reached at (571) 272-6708. 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.
/ZEHRA RAZA/Examiner, Art Unit 3697
/JOHN W HAYES/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3697