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 .
Response to Amendment
This Office Action is in response to the Amendment filed on 10/28/2025.
Claims 1, 12, and 17 are currently amended.
Claims 1-20 are currently pending and examined below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 1-20 is/are directed towards a statutory category (i.e., a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter) (Step 1, Yes).
Claim 1 recites (additional elements underlined):
A platform for establishing links between one or more remote entities for collaboration in the generation and distribution of live content to viewer devices, the platform comprising:
a live streaming server in communication with a network, the live streaming server configured for receiving streaming content associated with at least a host entity device associated with a host entity and a presenter entity device associated with a presenter entity;
live streaming sources in communication with the live streaming server, each live streaming source comprising one or more of a video device and an audio device configured for generating streaming content via at least the host entity device and the presenter entity device for distribution over the network; and
an administration server in communication with the network, the administration server configured for generating links and managing collaboration between three entities comprising the host entity, the presenter entity, and a supplier entity, wherein the host entity directs a sales presentation that is converted by the host entity device into the streaming content in real time, and the presenter entity performs the sales presentation of a product of the supplier entity under direction of the host entity, wherein the sales presentation is converted by the presenter entity device into the streaming content in real time;
user interfaces in communication with the network to enable interactions between the three entities, the user interfaces comprising at least one host entity interface in communication with host entity device, at least one presenter entity interface in communication with the presenter entity, and at least one supplier entity interface;
a database in communication with the administration server,
wherein the administration server is associated with an administrator website configured to execute a sign-up process through which a platform user signs up to participate as one of the three entities in a managed collaboration, and wherein the administration server is further configured to:
receive a request from a first platform user who wishes to participate in the coordinated collaboration, wherein the first platform user is a first of the three entities;
display to the first platform user candidate options for second and third entities of the three entities;
receive candidate options selected by the first platform user for selected second and third entities of the three entities;
provide communication links between the at least one host entity interface, the at least one presenter entity interface, and the at least one supplier entity interface associated with the three entities through which the three entities negotiate and establish the managed collaboration with each other through which the host entity and the presenter entity each use a corresponding live streaming source to generate streaming content to advertise the supplier entity’s product;
receive requests from the host entity for scheduling a time slot for a streaming event associated with the managed collaboration between the three entities;
generate a viewer interface configured to interface and communicate with viewer devices at the scheduled time slot;
communicate with the live streaming server to initiate distribution of the streaming content via the viewer interface for interactive, real time display of the streaming content on the viewer devices at the scheduled time slot;
receive viewer communications from the viewer devices via the viewer interface in real time and direct the viewer communications to one or more of the host entity for response in real time during the scheduled time slot, a storage medium for recording viewer reactions in real time, and a transaction server for collecting viewer information for viewers who wish to purchase the supplier’s product, securing payment for purchases of the supplier’s product, and confirming purchase; and
store in the database user information entered via the administrator website, the user interfaces, the viewer interfaces, and the transaction server.
Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the limitations outlined above that describe or set forth the abstract idea, cover performance of the limitations in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer(s) and/or generic computer component(s). That is, other than reciting the additional elements identified below, nothing in the claim precludes the limitations from practically being performed in the mind. These limitations are considered a mental process because the limitations include an observation, evaluation, judgement, and/or opinion. These limitations are also similar to “collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis” and/or “collecting and comparing known information” which were determined to be mental processes in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(A). The Examiner notes that “[c]laims can recite a mental process even if they are claimed as being performed on a computer” (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C)). The mere nominal recitation of the additional elements identified below do not take the claims out of the mental process grouping. Therefore, the claim recite a mental process (Step 2A Prong One, Yes).
The limitations outlined above also describe or set forth an advertising/marketing activity. Advertising/marketing fall within the certain method of organizing human activity enumerated grouping of abstract ideas. The limitations outlined above also describe or set forth a fundamental economic principle or practice because advertising/marketing are related to commerce and economy, a commercial interaction (e.g., agreements in the form of contracts, advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors, business relations), and managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (e.g., between a viewer, a host entity, a presenter, and supplier). Therefore, the claim recites a certain method of organizing human activity (Step 2A Prong One, Yes).
In Step 2A Prong Two, these additional element(s) are recited at a high level of generality, and under the broadest reasonable interpretation, are generic computer(s) and/or generic computer component(s) that perform generic computer functions. The additional element(s) are merely used as tools, in their ordinary capacity, to perform the abstract idea. The additional element(s) amount adding the words “apply it” with the judicial exception. Merely implementing an abstract idea on generic computer(s) and/or generic computer component(s) does not integrate the judicial exception similar to how the recitation of the computer in the claim in Alice amounted to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea of intermediated settlement on a generic computer. “[T]he use of generic computer elements like a microprocessor or user interface do not alone transform an otherwise abstract idea into patent eligible subject matter" (see pp 10-11 of FairWarning IP, LLC. v. Iatric Systems, Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2016)). The additional elements also amount to generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. The type of information being manipulated does not impose meaningful limitations or render the idea less abstract. Further, the courts have found that simply limiting the use of the abstract idea to a particular environment does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Viewing the limitations as an ordered combination does not add anything further than looking at the limitations individually. The additional elements amount no more than mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using generic computer(s) and/or generic computer component(s). Their collective functions merely provide generic computer implementation. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer, improves any other technology or technical field, applies or uses the judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for disease or medical condition, applies the judicial exception with, or by use of a particular machine, effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or applies or uses 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 claims as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. (Step 2A Prong Two, No).
In Step 2B, the additional elements also do not amount to significantly more for the same reasons set forth with respect to Step 2A Prong Two. The Examiner notes that revised Step 2A overlaps with Step 2B, and thus, many of the considerations need not be reevaluated in Step 2B because the answer will be the same. However, unless an Examiner had previously concluded under revised Step 2A that an additional element was insignificant extra-solution activity, they should reevaluate that conclusion in Step 2B (see 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, now in MPEP 2106). Viewing the limitations as an ordered combination does not add anything further than looking at the limitations individually. The additional elements amount no more than a mere instruction to apply the abstract idea using generic computer(s) and/or generic computer component(s) (Step 2B, No).
Claims 2-11 recite further limitations that also fall within the same abstract ideas identified above with respect to claim 1 (i.e., certain methods of organizing human activities and/or mental processes). Claims 2-3 recite the additional elements of “wherein the administration server is further configured to”. Claims 4-5 recite the additional element of “streaming”. Claim 6 does not recite any other additional elements other than those recited in claim 1. Claim 7 recites the additional elements of “wherein the administration server is further configured to”, “in real-time”, and “live streaming of the streaming”. Claim 8 recites the additional element of “wherein the administration server is further configured to”. Claim 9 recites the additional element of “wherein the streaming content is live video”. Claim 10 recites the additional element of “wherein the streaming content is audio only”. Claim 11 recites the additional element of “streaming”. However, these additional elements also do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more because they amount to adding the words “apply it” with the judicial exception, mere instructions to implement the idea on a computer, merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, and generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
Claim 12 recites (additional elements underlined):
A method for establishing links between one or more remote entities for collaboration in the generation and distribution of live content to viewer devices, the method comprising:
connecting at least one live streaming server with a network, the at least one live streaming server configured for receiving streaming content from a plurality of live streaming sources associated with at least a host entity and a presenter entity, each live streaming source comprising one or more of a video device and an audio device configured for generating streaming content comprising one or more of a video and audio depictions of at least the host entity and the presenter entity;
providing an administration server associated with an administrator website in communication with the network for providing user access to streaming content and for generating links and coordinating collaboration between three entities, wherein the three entities comprise the host entity, the presenter entity, and a supplier entity, wherein the host entity directs a sales presentation that is converted by the host entity device into the streaming content in real time, and the presenter entity performs the sales presentation of a product of the supplier entity under direction of the host entity, wherein the sales presentation is converted by the presenter entity device into the streaming content in real time;
generating a plurality of user interfaces comprising at least one host entity interface in communication with host entity device, at least one presenter entity interface in communication with presenter entity, and at least one supplier entity interface;
executing via the administrator website a sign-up process through which a platform user signs up to participate as one of the three entities in a managed collaboration;
receiving a request from a user interface associated with a first platform user who wishes to participate in the coordinated collaboration, wherein the first platform user is a first of the three entities;
displaying to the first platform user selectable options for second and third entities of the three entities;
receiving options selected by the first platform user for selected second and third entities of the three entities;
providing communication links between the three entities to negotiate and establish a coordinated collaboration with each other through which the host entity and the presenter entity generate streaming content advertising the supplier entity’s product;
scheduling a time slot for a streaming event associated with the coordinated collaboration between the three entities;
generating a viewer interface configured to interface with viewer devices at the scheduled time slot;
communicating with the at least one live streaming server to initiate distribution of the streaming content via the viewer interface for interactive, real time display of the streaming content on the viewer devices at the scheduled time slot;
receiving viewer communications from the viewer devices via the viewer interface in real time and directing the viewer communications to one or more of the host entity for response in real time during the scheduled time slot and a transaction server for collecting viewer information for viewers who wish to purchase the supplier’s product securing payment for purchases of the supplier’s product and confirming purchase; and
storing in a storage medium in communication with the administration server one or more of the viewer communications in real time, host entity responses to the viewer communications in real time, and transaction records for purchases.
For the same reasons explained above with respect to claim 1, claim 12 also recite an abstract idea in Step 2A Prong One (i.e., certain method of organizing human activity and mental processes). For the same reasons explained above with respect to claim 1, the additional elements recite in claim 12 also do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more.
Claims 13-20 recite further limitations that also fall within the same abstract ideas identified above with respect to claim 12 (i.e., certain methods of organizing human activities and/or mental processes). Claims 13-14 do not recite any other additional elements other than those recited in claim 12. Claims 15-16 and 20 recite the additional element of “streaming”. Claim 17 recites the additional elements of “in real time” and “live streaming of the streaming”. Claim 18 recites the additional element of “platform”. Claim 19 recites the additional element of “wherein the streaming content is one of live video and live audio”. However, these additional elements also do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more because they amount to adding the words “apply it” with the judicial exception, mere instructions to implement the idea on a computer, merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, and generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
Prior Art
The Examiner notes that after an exhaustive search the claims currently overcome prior art. The closest prior art found to are the following:
Shenk et al. (US 2021/0342929 A1) discloses an online and social collaborative commerce system and method that provides an interactive and virtual personal shopping experience through a platform that facilitates direct selling of products or services. The experience utilizes a network of independent representatives, consultants or stylist to sell the products or services to consumers or guests. In one embodiment, information is received from a hostess to begin a direct selling event. A stylist is matched with the event and a set of hostess’ guests are invited. Using this information, a specific website for the event is generated. A stylist portal, hostess portal and at least one guest portal to the specific website is launched for the event. Through the stylist portal, a selection of products or services may be displayed on the at least one guest portal for purchase. The hostess portal is used to facilitate the event. While Shenk discloses a collaboration between a host entity and presenter entity to perform a sales presentation of a supplier’s products, Shenk does not appear to explicitly teach a supplier entity interface in communication with the network, the first platform user selecting both the second and third entities, and scheduling a time slot for a streaming event associated with the coordinated collaboration between the three entities as claimed.
Ratcliffe et al. (US 2005/0149401 A1) discloses the concept of compensating users and/or negotiating the compensation each user might receive for collaboration or participation on a project. Once users have been contacted they can accept, rejection, or counter as to whether they are willing to collaborate on the project for the stated compensation.
Sanders (US 2014/0142993 A1) discloses the concept of collecting reviews or ratings of one or more entities from other entities to generate entity profiles.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/28/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. In the Remarks, Applicant argues:
Argument A: “With respect to Step 2A, Prong 2, Applicant respectfully submits that, even if the independent claims had recited an abstract idea, which Applicant does not concede, that idea is integrated into a practical application as defined in the Revised 101 Guidance. More specifically, the independent claims are each recited in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit such that the claims are more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the idea. The claimed invention involves the integration of specific hardware components, each serving a distinct function and being interconnected in a novel and non-obvious manner, which is clearly evidenced by the Examiner's admission at page 9 of the Office Action that the claims currently overcome prior art after an exhaustive search. These hardware components are essential to the practical implementation of the invention and cannot be replaced by abstract concepts or mental processes. The integration of such hardware components in the claimed invention results in a technical functionality that goes beyond mere abstract ideas. Each such hardware component, such as the host entity device, the presenter device, the live streaming server, the live streaming sources, the administration server, the database, and the viewer devices, interact to generate a tangible and practical outcome that solves technical problems related to selling through a remote platform in real time. In at least this manner, the claimed invention is directed to specific real-world applications rather than a purely abstract concept and thereby addresses practical problems to provide concrete solutions that are implemented using tangible hardware components. Applicant submits that the claims are patent eligible because they constitute significantly more than that abstract idea and integrate that abstract idea into a practical application by improvement in virtual web application technology. The claims recite additional elements including multiple servers (e.g., streaming, administrative, transactional), host and presenter devices which generate video and/or audio streaming content, a database, viewer devices, and interfaces for enabling communications between the servers and devices. Together, these additional elements integrate the abstract idea of facilitating a real time selling experience into a practical application the utilizes the recited hardware and improves webpage and streaming technology. The claims add other meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular environment to transform the judicial exception into patent eligible subject matter. The claims are not the mere instructions to apply the abstract idea on a computer because the claims recite details as to how the solution is accomplished, do not merely invoke computers as a tool to perform an existing process, and the claims apply to a particular application in the specific field of on-line virtual interactions. There is no evidence that the claim recitations are well-understood, routine, and conventional. In fact, the opposite is true given the Examiner' s inability after exhaustive searching to find prior art that was considered material to patentability. Finally, the claims do not recite insignificant extra-solution activity because the limitations are core to the solution of the invention as described by the specification. When all of these factors are considered, the claims clearly recite patent eligible subject matter.”
In response, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. First, the limitations outlined above that describe or set forth the abstract idea in Step 2A Prong One describe or set forth a mental process and certain methods of organizing human activities. As explained above, these limitations are considered a mental process because the limitations include an observation, evaluation, judgement, and/or opinion. These limitations are also similar to “collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis” and/or “collecting and comparing known information” which were determined to be mental processes in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(A). The Examiner notes that “[c]laims can recite a mental process even if they are claimed as being performed on a computer” (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C)). The mere nominal recitation of the additional elements do not take the claims out of the mental process grouping. Therefore, the claims recite a mental process (Step 2A Prong One, Yes).
The limitations outlined above also describe or set forth an advertising/marketing activity. Advertising/marketing fall within the certain method of organizing human activity enumerated grouping of abstract ideas. The limitations outlined above also describe or set forth a fundamental economic principle or practice because advertising/marketing are related to commerce and economy, a commercial interaction (e.g., agreements in the form of contracts, advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors, business relations), and managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (e.g., between a viewer, a host entity, a presenter, and supplier). Therefore, the claim recites a certain method of organizing human activity (Step 2A Prong One, Yes).
Second, unlike in DDR in which the claimed invention solved the business challenge of retaining website visitors that is particular to the Internet, here the claimed invention amounts to merely reciting the performance of a business practice (e.g., connecting entities for producing content for advertising and selling of products or services to potential purchasers) along with the requirement to perform it on the Internet. The claimed invention here is not necessarily rooted in computer technology in order to overcome a problem specifically arising in the realm of computer networks. The claims here are ineligible because their innovation is an innovation in ineligible subject matter. The advance lies entirely in the realm of the abstract idea.
Third, the additional elements are recited at a high level of generality, and are merely used as tools, in their ordinary capacity, to perform the abstract idea. “Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other task (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more” (MPEP 2106.05(f)(2)).
Fourth, “the ‘novelty’ of any element or steps in a process, or of the process itself, is of no relevance in determining whether the subject matter of a claim falls within the § 101 categories of possible patentable subject matter” (MPEP 2106.05(I)). Additionally, “[w]hile preemption is the concern underlying the judicial exceptions, it is not a standalone test for determining eligibility. […] Instead, questions of preemption are inherent in and resolved by the two-part framework from Alice Corp. and Mayo” (MPEP 2106.05(I)). Additionally, “eligibility should not be evaluated based on whether the claim recites a ‘useful, concrete, and tangible result” (MPEP 2106.05(I)).
Fifth, the Office Action does not take the position that any of the additional elements amount to adding insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A Prong Two that would warrant an analysis in Step 2B to determine that the additional element also amounts to simply appending well-understood, routine, and conventional activity. Additionally, "the relevant inquiry is not whether the claimed invention as a whole is unconventional or non-routine" (see p. 16 of BSG Tech LLC v. BuySeasons, Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2018).
Therefore, the claims as currently amended still do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more.
Conclusion
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 SAM REFAI whose telephone number is (313)446-4822. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00am-6:00pm.
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, Waseem Ashraf can be reached on 571-270-3948. 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.
/SAM REFAI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3621