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 .
Acknowledgement
The Amendment/Request for Reconsideration filed 03/02/2026 has been considered and is acknowledged.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 03/02/2026 has been entered.
Status of Claims
Claims 1, 7 and 9-10 are amended.
Claims 1-11 are pending.
Response of Arguments
Again, the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection is maintained. According the Applicant’s specification, “[0029] … the derivative creation rights are granted to the secondary creator using a NFT (Non-Fungible Token) created based on the blockchain. The NFT granted in this way is sometimes hereafter referred to as derivative creation rights NFT. More specifically, derivative creation rights NFT is issued on the blockchain, with the owner being the secondary creator, granting derivative creation rights to the secondary creator. Managing rights using such derivative creation rights NFT ensures uniqueness and prevents tampering with records such as ownership.
[0030] The control unit 210 generates transactions indicating a rights grant instruction according to the form of the blockchain used and sends the generated transactions as requests to the blockchain network (more specifically, the node 100), recording them in the blockchain (more specifically, the storage unit 110 of the node 100, described later). The method of generating transactions and recording them in the blockchain is widely known and will not be described in detail here.”
Herein the Applicant’s disclosure admits that the newly amended claim language of “…sending a transaction...via a blockchain…;” as well as “…recording the transaction on a blockchain” is widely known. Thus it is maintained that the additional elements set forth in the amended claims (i.e., “a node”, “a terminal device”, “a memory” and “one or more processors”) are recited at a high level of generality. As previously indicated, the specification describes a node as a conventional device participating in a blockchain network [see specification, ¶0026]. The terminal device, again, is described as a conventional as a smartphone or tablet device [see specification, ¶0027]. The memory is described as a storage unit, [see specification, ¶0033]. The one or more processors are described as being realized by a computer processor (e.g., CPU, GPU), [see specification, ¶0032]. Thus, it is maintained the functions of the additional elements do not reflect an improvement in the computer system or an improvement in blockchain technology itself but a use of blockchain technology to implement the abstract idea of rights management.
It is also again maintained that, wherein at least claim 1 recites, “…grant derivation creation rights to a second creator based on a rights grant instruction…; send a transaction indicating the rights grant instruction…record the transaction…calculate a contribution rate of a second content to the first content based on sales transaction history…; determined payment amounts to the primary creator…”, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the limitations recite mere instructions to apply the judicial consideration. [see MPEP 2106.05(c)].
It is again maintained that the claim(s) recite the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment (i.e., using blockchain technology or within a blockchain technology environment).
Thus the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection is maintained 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 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
2. In the instant case, claim 1 is directed to a rights management device and claim 7 is directed to a rights management system, claim 9 is directed to a method and claim 10 is directed to a computer readable information medium storing a rights management program
3. Claim 1 is directed to the abstract idea of “rights management” which is grouped under certain methods of organizing human activity and/or using mathematical relationships in prong one of step 2A (See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance). Claim 1 recites “ ….grant derivative creation rights to a secondary creator based on a rights grant instruction indicating the granting of the derivative creation rights for first content created by a primary creator to the secondary creator; calculate a contribution rate … of second content to the first content based on sales transaction history of the second content created by the secondary creator who owns the derivative creation rights; and determine payment amounts to the primary creator and the secondary creator based on the contribution rate. ”
Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea (See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance).
4. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because, when analyzed under prong two of step 2A (See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance), the additional elements of the claim such as a device with “a node”, “a terminal device”, “a memory” and “one or more processors” represent the use of a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea and/or does no more than generally link the abstract idea to a particular field of use. Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application as they do no more than represent a computer performing functions that correspond to implement the acts of rights management.
5. When analyzed under step 2B (See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance), the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. Viewed as a whole, the combination of elements recited in the claims merely describe the concept of rights management using computer technology (e.g., memory and one or more processors). Therefore, the use of these additional elements does no more than employ a computer as a tool to automate and/or implement the abstract idea, which cannot provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself (MPEP 2106.05(I)(A)(f) & (h)).
6. Hence, claim 1 is not patent eligible.
7. claim 2 recites, “…instructions to: calculate a damage rate…; and determine the payment amounts…” which may be considered certain methods of organizing human activity having concepts relating to transactions people or managing relationships (e.g., “…determine payment amounts…”) or mathematical relationships (e.g., “…calculated a damage rate…”), relating to performing mathematical calculations.
8. Claims 3-4 recite instructions related to invalidate or grants creation rights. Rights are abstract in that they are legal entitlements that are permissible to an individual or group of people in a society. Thus invalidating and/or granting creation rights is considered patent ineligible wherein they can be grouped under certain methods or organizing human activity by satisfying or avoiding legal obligation.
9. Claim 5 recites, “…instructions to: manage evaluation information…” which can be grouped under certain methods of organizing human activity.
10. Claim 6 recites, “wherein the processor is configured to execute the instructions to accept a vote from an evaluator using a voting algorithm implemented in a smart contract and manage the content of the vote as evaluation information…” which can be grouped under certain methods of organizing human activity and or mathematical relationships (e.g., “…using a voting algorithm…”)
11. Claim 7 is directed to the abstract idea of “rights management” which is grouped under certain methods of organizing human activity and/or using mathematical relationships in prong one of step 2A (See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance). Claim 7 recites “ …. issues a rights grant instruction,…, indicating the granting of derivative creation rights for first content created by a primary creator to a secondary creator, and …instructions to: grant the derivative creation rights to the secondary creator based on the rights grant instruction; calculate a contribution rate … of the second content the first content based on evaluation information of indicating an evaluation of second content created by the secondary creator who owns the derivative creation rights; and determine payment amounts to the primary creator and the secondary creator based on the contribution rate.”
Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea (See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance).
12. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because, when analyzed under prong two of step 2A (See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance), the additional elements of the claim such as a terminal device with a node, represent the use of a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea and/or does no more than generally link the abstract idea to a particular field of use. Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application as they do no more than represent a computer performing functions that correspond to implement the acts of rights management.
13. When analyzed under step 2B (See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance), the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. Viewed as a whole, the combination of elements recited in the claims merely describe the concept of rights management using computer technology (e.g., terminal device and node). Therefore, the use of these additional elements does no more than employ a computer as a tool to automate and/or implement the abstract idea, which cannot provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself (MPEP 2106.05(I)(A)(f) & (h)).
14. Hence, claim 7 is not patent eligible.
15. Claim 9 is directed to the abstract idea of “rights management” which is grouped under certain methods of organizing human activity and/or using mathematical relationships in prong one of step 2A (See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance). Claim 9 recites “ …. granting derivative creation rights to a secondary creator based on a rights grant instruction indicating the granting of the derivative creation rights for first content created by a primary creator to the secondary creator; calculating a contribution rate indicating a degree to which second content improves an evaluation of the first content based on evaluation information of indicating an evaluation of second content created by the secondary creator who owns the derivative creation rights; and determining payment amounts to the primary creator and the secondary creator based on the contribution rate.. ”
Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea (See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance).
16. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because, when analyzed under prong two of step 2A (See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance), there are no additional elements in the claim which represent the use of a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea and/or and thus does no more than generally link the abstract idea to a particular field of use. Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application as they do no more than represent a computer performing functions that correspond to implement the acts of rights management.
17. When analyzed under step 2B (See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance), the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. Viewed as a whole, the combination of elements recited in the claims merely describe the concept of rights management using computer technology. Therefore, the use of these additional elements does no more than employ a computer as a tool to automate and/or implement the abstract idea, which cannot provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself (MPEP 2106.05(I)(A)(f) & (h)).
18. Hence, claim 9 is not patent eligible.
19. Claim 10 is directed to the abstract idea of “rights management” which is grouped under certain methods of organizing human activity and/or using mathematical relationships in prong one of step 2A (See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance). Claim 9 recites “ …. rights management process for granting derivative creation rights to a secondary creator based on a rights grant instruction indicating the granting of the derivative creation rights for first content created by a primary creator to the secondary creator; calculation process for calculating a contribution rate indicating a degree to which second content improves an evaluation of the first content based on evaluation information of indicating an evaluation of second content created by the secondary creator who owns the derivative creation rights; and payment amount determination process for determining payment amounts to the primary creator and the secondary creator based on the contribution rate...”
Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea (See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance).
16. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because, when analyzed under prong two of step 2A (See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance), there are no additional elements in the claim which represent the use of a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea and/or and thus does no more than generally link the abstract idea to a particular field of use. Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application as they do no more than represent a computer performing functions that correspond to implement the acts of rights management.
17. When analyzed under step 2B (See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance), the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. Viewed as a whole, the combination of elements recited in the claims merely describe the concept of rights management using computer technology. Therefore, the use of these additional elements does no more than employ a computer as a tool to automate and/or implement the abstract idea, which cannot provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself (MPEP 2106.05(I)(A)(f) & (h)).
18. Hence, claim 10 is not patent eligible.
19. Claim 11, recites, “…terminal device configured to execute instructions to generate a transaction…” sets forth an intended use of the terminal device and thus has limited patentable weight [MPEP 2114].
Conclusion
21. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL S FELTEN whose telephone number is (571)272-6742. The examiner can normally be reached Flex.
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, Ryan D Donlon can be reached at 5712703602. 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.
DANIEL S. FELTEN
Examiner
Art Unit 3692
/DANIEL S FELTEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3692