DETAILED ACTION
This action is in reply to the original application filed on 09/05/2024.
Claims 1-20 are rejected.
Claims 1-20 are currently pending and have been examined.
Priority
This patent Application claims priority to U.S. Provisional Patent Application No. 63/536,884 filed 09/06/2023. This benefit has been received and acknowledged and therefore, the instant claims receive the effective filing date of 09/06/2023.
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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 12-18 are objected to because of the following informalities:
-Claims 12-16 read “The server computing system of claim 1” but should likely read “The server computing system of claim 11”
-Claim 17 reads “The server computing system of claim 6” but should likely read “The server computing system of claim 16”
Claim 18 inherits the deficiencies noted in claim 17, and is therefore rejected on the same basis.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Under Step 1 of the Subject Matter Eligibility Test for Products and Processes, the claims must be directed to one of the four statutory categories (see MPEP 2106.03). All the claims are directed to one of the four statutory categories (YES).
Under Step 2A of the Subject Matter Eligibility Test, it is determined whether the claims are directed to a judicially recognized exception (see MPEP 2106.04). Step 2A is a two-prong inquiry.
Under Prong 1, it is determined whether the claim recites a judicial exception (YES). Taking Claim 11 as representative, the claim recites limitations that fall within the certain methods of organizing human activity groupings of abstract ideas, including:
-A server computing system comprising:
-one or more processors;
-a memory storing a set of instructions, the instructions when executed in the one or more processors causing the one or more processors to implement operations comprising:
-receiving a request, via a content provisioning platform, that specifies a genre of content data and a set of content filtering criteria;
-discovering, responsive to the request, at least one content item created in accordance with the set of content filtering criteria; and
-engaging at least one content provider associated with the at least one content item based at least in part upon the set of content filtering criteria in conjunction with a set of consent rules associated with the at least one content item
The above limitations recite the concept of discovering and providing a content item based content filtering criteria and a set of consent rules. The above limitations fall within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” groupings of abstract ideas, enumerated in MPEP 2106.04(a).
Certain methods of organizing human activity include:
fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, and mitigating risk)
commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; and business relations)
managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions)
The limitations of discovering, responsive to the request, at least one content item created in accordance with the set of content filtering criteria; and engaging at least one content provider associated with the at least one content item based at least in part upon the set of content filtering criteria in conjunction with a set of consent rules associated with the at least one content item are processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover a commercial interaction. For example, “discovering” and “engaging” in the context of this claim encompass advertising, and marketing or sales activities.
Similarly, the limitations of a server computing system comprising: a memory storing a set of instructions, the instructions when executed in the one or more processors causing the one or more processors to implement operations comprising: receiving a request, via a content provisioning platform, that specifies a genre of content data and a set of content filtering criteria are processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover a commercial interaction. That is, other than reciting that the system is a server computing system, that the operations are implemented by instructions stored in a memory that are executed in one or more processors, and that the request is via a content provisioning platform, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed by people. For example, but for the “server computing system,” “memory storing a set of instructions, the instructions when executed in the one or more processors causing the one or more processors to implement operations,” and “a content provisioning platform” in the context of this claim encompasses advertising, and marketing or sales activities.
Under Prong 2, it is determined whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application (NO).
-A server computing system comprising:
-one or more processors;
-a memory storing a set of instructions, the instructions when executed in the one or more processors causing the one or more processors to implement operations comprising:
-receiving a request, via a content provisioning platform, that specifies a genre of content data and a set of content filtering criteria;
-discovering, responsive to the request, at least one content item created in accordance with the set of content filtering criteria; and
-engaging at least one content provider associated with the at least one content item based at least in part upon the set of content filtering criteria in conjunction with a set of consent rules associated with the at least one content item
These limitations are not indicative of integration into a practical application because:
The additional elements of claim 11 are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as generic computing hardware) such that they amount to nothing more than mere instructions to implement or apply the abstract idea on a generic computing hardware (or, merely use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea) as supported by Applicant’s specification – “one or more embodiments described herein may be implemented through the use of logic instructions that are executable by one or more processors of a computing device, including a server computing device. These instructions may be stored on a computer-readable medium. In particular, machines shown with embodiments herein include processor(s) and various forms of memory for storing data and instructions.” Specifically, the additional elements of a server computing system, one or more processors, a memory storing a set of instructions, the instructions when executed in the one or more processors causing the one or more processors to implement operations, and a content provisioning platform are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e. as a generic processor performing the generic computer functions of receiving data, discovering data, and engaging [i.e. sending and receiving data]) such that they amount do no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. Further, the additional elements do no more than generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (such as computers or computing networks). Employing well-known computer functions to execute an abstract idea, even when limiting the use of the idea to one particular environment, does not integrate the exception into a practical application.
Additionally, the additional elements are insufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the claim fails to i) reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field, ii) apply the judicial exception with, or use the judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, iii) effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or iv) apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment.
Accordingly, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
Under Step 2B, it is determined whether the claims recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claims of the present application do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (NO).
In the case of claim 11, taken individually or as a whole, the additional elements of claim 9 do not provide an inventive concept. As discussed above under step 2A (prong 2) with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements used to perform the claimed functions amount to no more than a general link to a technological environment.
Even considered as an ordered combination (as a whole), the additional elements do not add anything significantly more than when considered individually.
Claim 1 is a method reciting similar functions as claim 11. Examiner notes that claim 1 recites the additional elements of one or more processors, a server computing device of a content provisioning platform, and the content provisioning platform, however, claim 1 does not qualify as eligible subject matter for similar reasons as claim 11 indicated above.
Claim 20 is a non-transitory, computer readable medium reciting similar functions as claim 11. Examiner notes that claim 20 recites the additional elements of a non-transitory, computer readable medium, a processor, and the content provisioning platform, however, claim 20 does not qualify as eligible subject matter for similar reasons as claim 11 indicated above.
Therefore, claims 1, 11, and 20 do not provide an inventive concept and do not qualify as eligible subject matter.
Dependent claims 2-10 and 12-19, when analyzed as a whole, are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because they do not add “significantly more” to the abstract idea. More specifically, dependent claims 2-10 and 12-19 further fall within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas in that they recite commercial interactions. Dependent claims 2-3, 5, 9-10, 12-13, 15, and 18-19 do not recite any farther additional elements, and as such are not indicative of integration into a practical application for at least similar reasons discussed above. Dependent claims 4, 6-8, 14, and 16-17 recite the additional elements of a pointer or a link to a designated storage space within a storage medium, a link to at least one financial payment account, a display interface, a computing device, a designated storage location within a storage medium, and a blockchain, but similar to the analysis under prong two of Step 2A these additional elements are used as a tool to perform the abstract idea. As such, under prong two of Step 2A, claims 2-10 and 12-19 are not indicative of integration into a practical application for at least similar reasons as discussed above. Thus, dependent claims 2-10 and 12-19 are “directed to” an abstract idea. Next, under Step 2B, similar to the analysis of claims 1, 11, and 20, dependent claims 2-10 and 12-19 when analyzed individually and as an ordered combination, merely further define the commonplace business method (i.e. discovering and providing a content item based content filtering criteria and a set of consent rules) being applied on a general-purpose computer and, therefore, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Accordingly, the Examiner concludes that there are no meaningful limitations in the claims that transform the judicial exception into a patent eligible application such that the claims amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. The analysis above applies to all statutory categories of invention.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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, 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-6, 11-16, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hierons et al. (US 2013/0339343 A1), hereinafter Hierons, in view of Peters et al. (US 2017/0337621 A1), hereinafter Peters.
Regarding claim 1, Hierons discloses a method, performed in one or more processors of a server computing device of a content provisioning platform, the method comprising:
-receiving a request, via the content provisioning platform, that specifies a genre of content data and a set of content filtering criteria (Hierons, see at least: “the webpage 125 provides a user interface including search tools (shown as media search window 140) that include a set of filter tools and a keyword search tool (Operation 205) [i.e. receiving a request]. In one embodiment, the client computer 105 (e.g., webpage 125) determines if the user submits a search request for media (e.g., film music) via the filter tools and/or the keyword search tool (Operation 210). Examples of filtering criteria that can be selected (at different times or at the same time) via one or more filter tools include tempo, music genre, vibe, film genre [i.e. that specifies a genre of content data], instruments, theme, trailer music, and/or ensemble [i.e. and a set of content filtering criteria]” [0045] and “A user uses a web browser 120 on the client computer 105 to access the Internet. In one embodiment, server computer 110 [i.e. via the content provisioning platform] transmits a webpage 125 via the network 115 to the client computer 105 for display by the web browser 120 in a browser window 130” [0042]);
-discovering, responsive to the request, at least one content item created in accordance with the set of content filtering criteria (Hierons, see at least: “In response to a user search request for media via the filter tools and/or the keyword search tool [i.e. responsive to the request], the server computer 110 provides within the same window of the webpage 125 a set of media search results (Operation 215) [i.e. discovering at least one content item created in accordance with the set of content filtering criteria]” [0047]); and
-engaging at least one content provider associated with the at least one content item based at least in part upon the set of content filtering criteria and a set of consent rules associated with the at least one content item (Hierons, see at least: “the user selects a search result (e.g., film music track) and decides that the user wants to license the media (e.g., film music track) [i.e. based at least in part upon the set of content filtering criteria]. In one embodiment, the user uses the webpage 125 to transmit a request 185 to the server computer 110 for a commercial license of the media. In one embodiment, the webpage 125 provides a user interface for requesting a quote for a commercial license of the media and for identifying an intended media” [0061] and “the request 185 includes the request to license particular media and the intended media use. In one embodiment, the server computer 110 receives the request 185 and communicates with the owner of the media [i.e. engaging at least one content provider associated with the at least one content item]. In one embodiment, the licensing terms vary depending on the intended media use [i.e. and a set of consent rules associated with the at least one content item]” [0062]).
Hierons does not explicitly teach engaging at least one content provider associated with the at least one content item based at least in part upon the set of content filtering criteria in conjunction with a set of consent rules associated with the at least one content item.
Peters, however, teaches an online marketplace for creative works (i.e. abstract), including the know technique of engaging at least one content provider associated with the at least one content item based at least in part upon the set of content filtering criteria in conjunction with a set of consent rules associated with the at least one content item (Peters, see at least: “When the seller 122 posts that a work that they have ownership of is for sale, the seller 122 sets relevant filtering parameters 128 such as: geographical regions where ownership is valid and distribution is permitted [i.e. in conjunction with a set of consent rules associated with the at least one content item]; specifying themes within the creative content that are set as search word parameters for potential buyers 126 [i.e. based at least in part upon the set of content filtering criteria]; placing the work in particular categories; and specifying the virtual “stores” within the marketplace will serve as the access point to the buyers 126. The marketplace uses different ranking 142 algorithms to determine the value and demand for the creative work, and the seller 122 can utilize the market price setter tool 144 to help determine starting bids and copyright ticket price 146 values for their creative work. Buyers 126 can then start placing bids 130 within the marketplace, and the bid effectively ends 132 in an allotted period of time. The marketplace function of the present invention determines the winning bid 134 and a message is sent out 136 through the messaging interface within the present invention to notify both the seller 122 [i.e. engaging at least one content provider associated with the at least one content item] and the buyer 126 of the transaction” [0053]). This known technique is applicable to the method of Hierons as they both share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to an online marketplace for creative works.
It would have been recognized that applying the known technique of engaging at least one content provider associated with the at least one content item based at least in part upon the set of content filtering criteria in conjunction with a set of consent rules associated with the at least one content item, as taught by Peters, to the teachings of Hierons would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate such references into similar methods. Further, adding the modification of engaging at least one content provider associated with the at least one content item based at least in part upon the set of content filtering criteria in conjunction with a set of consent rules associated with the at least one content item, as taught by Peters, into the method of Hierons would have been recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art as resulting in an improved method that would make the legal aspects of payment negotiation easier (Peters, [0030]).
Regarding claim 2, Hierons in view of Peters teaches the method of claim 1. Hierons further discloses:
-wherein the at least one content item comprises at least one of: an audio content portion, an image content portion, a video content portion, a website content portion, a text content portion, a product review, a services review, and social media content data associated with one or more of a hashtag, a social media handle, and a message exchange (Hierons, see at least: “the webpage 125 provides a user interface including search tools (shown as media search window 140) that include a set of filter tools and a keyword search tool (Operation 205). In one embodiment, the client computer 105 (e.g., webpage 125) determines if the user submits a search request for media (e.g., film music) [i.e. wherein the at least one content item comprises at least one of: an audio content portion, an image content portion, a video content portion, a website content portion, a text content portion, a product review, a services review, and social media content data associated with one or more of a hashtag, a social media handle, and a message exchange] via the filter tools and/or the keyword search tool (Operation 210). Examples of filtering criteria that can be selected (at different times or at the same time) via one or more filter tools include tempo, music genre, vibe, film genre, instruments, theme, trailer music, and/or ensemble” [0045]).
Regarding claim 3, Hierons in view of Peters teaches the method of claim 1. Hierons further discloses:
-wherein the set of content filtering criteria comprises at least one of: a language, a dialect, a cultural affiliation, a cultural event, a social affiliation, a geographic region or country, a locale, an age demographic, a content genre, a musical genre, a video genre, a product marketing attribute, a services marketing attribute, and a social attribute associated with one or more authors of the content item (Hierons, see at least: “the webpage 125 provides a user interface including search tools (shown as media search window 140) that include a set of filter tools and a keyword search tool (Operation 205). In one embodiment, the client computer 105 (e.g., webpage 125) determines if the user submits a search request for media (e.g., film music) via the filter tools and/or the keyword search tool (Operation 210). Examples of filtering criteria that can be selected (at different times or at the same time) via one or more filter tools include tempo, music genre [i.e. wherein the set of content filtering criteria comprises at least one of: a language, a dialect, a cultural affiliation, a cultural event, a social affiliation, a geographic region or country, a locale, an age demographic, a content genre, a musical genre, a video genre, a product marketing attribute, a services marketing attribute, and a social attribute associated with one or more authors of the content item], vibe, film genre, instruments, theme, trailer music, and/or ensemble” [0045]).
Regarding claim 4, Hierons in view of Peters teaches the method of claim 1. Hierons further discloses:
-wherein the at least one content item is further associated with at least one of: a provider account, a pointer or a link to a designated storage space within a storage medium, one or more authors or creators of the at least one content item, a monetary fee amount and a link to at least one financial payment account (Hierons, see at least: “the web page 125 also includes a media owners window 155. The media owners window 155 enables an owner of media to upload their media to the database 150 and therefore enable users to license the media [i.e. wherein the at least one content item is further associated with at least one of: a provider account, a pointer or a link to a designated storage space within a storage medium, one or more authors or creators of the at least one content item, a monetary fee amount and a link to at least one financial payment account]” [0058]).
Regarding claim 5, Hierons in view of Peters teaches the method of claim 1.
Hierons does not explicitly teach the set of consent rules specifying, in relation to the at least one content item, at least one of: a permitted field of use, a permitted manner of use, a term of use, a jurisdiction or locale of useage, a restriction on intellectual property rights being conferred by way of usage, and a monetary fee demand.
Peters, however, teaches an online marketplace for creative works (i.e. abstract), including the know technique of the set of consent rules specifying, in relation to the at least one content item, at least one of: a permitted field of use, a permitted manner of use, a term of use, a jurisdiction or locale of useage, a restriction on intellectual property rights being conferred by way of usage, and a monetary fee demand (Peters, see at least: “When the seller 122 posts that a work that they have ownership of is for sale, the seller 122 sets relevant filtering parameters 128 such as: geographical regions where ownership is valid and distribution is permitted [i.e. wherein the set of consent rules specify, in relation to the at least one content item, at least one of: a permitted field of use, a permitted manner of use, a term of use, a jurisdiction or locale of useage, a restriction on intellectual property rights being conferred by way of usage, and a monetary fee demand]; specifying themes within the creative content that are set as search word parameters for potential buyers 126; placing the work in particular categories; and specifying the virtual “stores” within the marketplace will serve as the access point to the buyers 126. The marketplace uses different ranking 142 algorithms to determine the value and demand for the creative work, and the seller 122 can utilize the market price setter tool 144 to help determine starting bids and copyright ticket price 146 values for their creative work. Buyers 126 can then start placing bids 130 within the marketplace, and the bid effectively ends 132 in an allotted period of time. The marketplace function of the present invention determines the winning bid 134 and a message is sent out 136 through the messaging interface within the present invention to notify both the seller 122 and the buyer 126 of the transaction” [0053]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Hierons with Peters for the reasons identified above with respect to claim 1.
Regarding claim 6, Hierons in view of Peters teaches the method of claim 1.
Hierons does not explicitly teach the engaging further comprising: rendering, at a display interface of a computing device, a solicitation for acceptance of an offer that includes a monetary fee amount in exchange for at least partial usage rights pertaining to the at least one content item.
Peters, however, teaches an online marketplace for creative works (i.e. abstract), including the know technique of the engaging further comprising: rendering, at a display interface of a computing device, a solicitation for acceptance of an offer that includes a monetary fee amount in exchange for at least partial usage rights pertaining to the at least one content item (Peters, see at least: “Buyers 126 can then start placing bids 130 within the marketplace, and the bid effectively ends 132 in an allotted period of time. The marketplace function of the present invention determines the winning bid 134 and a message is sent out 136 through the messaging interface [i.e. at a display interface of a computing device] within the present invention to notify both the seller 122 and the buyer 126 of the transaction. By agreeing to the terms of service of using the marketplace function of the present invention [i.e. wherein the engaging further comprises: rendering a solicitation for acceptance of an offer that includes a monetary fee amount], the seller and buyer conclude the marketplace transaction through previously stipulated trading activities 138. The marketplace feature then completes an e-commerce transaction using secure and encrypted connections to the external bank 140 account servers both the buyer 126 and the seller 122” [0053] and “The Content Buyer 212 account profile is designated for verified users that wish to purchase rights or licensing opportunities for works [i.e. an offer that includes a monetary fee amount in exchange for at least partial usage rights pertaining to the at least one content item] uploaded to the Content Distribution Network 202 by the Artist or Copyright Owner 210” [0054]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Hierons with Peters for the reasons identified above with respect to claim 1.
Claims 11-16 recite limitations directed towards a server computing system comprising: one or more processors; a memory storing a set of instructions, the instructions when executed in the one or more processors causing the one or more processors to implement operation (Hierons, see at least: “It is understood that each block of the block diagrams or operational illustrations, and combinations of blocks in the block diagrams or operational illustrations, can be implemented by means of analog or digital hardware and computer program instructions. These computer program instructions can be provided to a processor of a general purpose computer, special purpose computer, ASIC, or other programmable data processing apparatus, such that the instructions, which execute via the processor of the computer or other programmable data processing apparatus, implements the functions/acts specified in the block diagrams or operational block or blocks” [0038]). The limitations recited in claims 11-16 are parallel in nature to those addressed above for claims 1-6, respectively, and are therefore rejected for those same reasons set forth above in claims 1-6, respectively.
Claim 20 recites limitations directed towards non-transitory, computer readable medium storing instructions, the instructions being executable in a processor, and which, when executed in the processor, causing the processor to implement operations (Hierons, see at least: “A number of program modules and data files can be stored on a computer readable medium of the server” [0044]). The limitations recited in claim 20 are parallel in nature to those addressed above for claim 1, and are therefore rejected for those same reasons set forth above in claim 1.
Claims 7-10, 17 and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hierons, in view of Peters, in further view of Stone et al. (US 2023/0177185 A1), hereinafter Stone.
Regarding claim 7, Hierons in view of Peters teaches the method of claim 6.
Hierons in view of Peters does not explicitly teach receiving, responsive to acceptance of the offer, at least one of (i) the at least one content item, and (ii) information that enables accessing, at a designated storage location within a storage medium, the at least one content item.
Stone, however, teaches a digital marketplace (i.e. [0042]) including the known technique of receiving, responsive to acceptance of the offer, at least one of (i) the at least one content item, and (ii) information that enables accessing, at a designated storage location within a storage medium, the at least one content item (Stone, see at least: “a general paradigm of digital rights access is illustrated wherein a user wants access to a digital resource (90), such as a textual digital asset, a graphic or artistic digital asset, an audio digital asset, and/or a audio-video digital asset but must pass through some gateways or hurdles to obtain the rights and access. For example, as noted above, generally some consideration must be provided, such as payment (92) [i.e. receiving, responsive to acceptance of the offer] to a processor which may provide one or more forms of access keys, such as digital asset keys [i.e. at least one of (i) the at least one content item, and (ii) information that enables accessing, at a designated storage location within a storage medium, the at least one content item]. Such keys may also be administered by a security administration (94) function which may control an access gateway or security configuration (96) designed to prevent access to the digital resource or asset (98) until all requisite hurdles are met and confirmed. Thus a typical flow, as shown for example in FIG. 10, may begin with a user wishing to have access to a digital resource (102). The user may engage a rights purchasing provider to provide consideration, such as money, in exchange for rights (such as limited license rights which may be limited by various factors such as time, region, computing device, and the like) to use or access the digital resource (104). Given a successful exchange, the user may be provided with digital access means, such as a password, digital key, or other gateway pass or privileges confirmation to gain appropriate access to the digital resource (108)” [0066]). This known technique is applicable to the method of Hierons in view of Peters as they both share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to a digital marketplace.
It would have been recognized that applying the known technique of receiving, responsive to acceptance of the offer, at least one of (i) the at least one content item, and (ii) information that enables accessing, at a designated storage location within a storage medium, the at least one content item, as taught by Stone, to the teachings of Hierons in view of Peters would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate such references into similar methods. Further, adding the modification of receiving, responsive to acceptance of the offer, at least one of (i) the at least one content item, and (ii) information that enables accessing, at a designated storage location within a storage medium, the at least one content item, as taught by Stone, into the method of Hierons in view of Peters would have been recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art as resulting in an improved method that would provide more secure digital rights management (Stone, [0044]).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Hierons/Peters/Stone teaches the method of claim 7.
Hierons in view of Peters does not teach the storage medium comprising a blockchain.
Stone, however, teaches a digital marketplace (i.e. [0042]) including the known technique of the storage medium comprising a blockchain (Stone, see at least: “Referring to FIG. 11, as noted above, with the continued development and evolution of decentralized storage technologies, such as peer-to-peer filing sharing systems which may be immutable, persistent, secure, and based upon blockchain configurations, there is an opportunity to provide an enhanced level of secure access to selected digital assets. As shown in FIG. 11, a digital asset may be selected to be made available on an exchange or access system configured to feature certain digital assets in a secure manner using asset encryption (116). To produce a so-called “digital encrypted asset”, or “DEA”, for the illustrated exchange configuration, the selected digital asset may be divided into a single portion, or a plurality of portions (118). Each portion may be encrypted with a digital key (which may be termed an “Asset Key”) (120), and each encrypted portion may be uploaded to an immutable/decentralized storage configuration, such as a blockchain-based peer-to-peer decentralized filing sharing system (122) [i.e. wherein the storage medium comprises a blockchain] … Referring again to FIG. 11, subject to appropriate digital access credentials, a user may be granted access to at least a portion of the targeted digital asset which has been decrypted and re-assembled using the Asset Key and the Upload Manifest (126). The user may utilize the at least a portion of the targeted digital asset with a local computing device, such as a digital book reader or digital music player (128)” [0067]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Hierons in view of Peters with Stone for the reasons identified above with respect to claim 7.
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Hierons/Peters/Stone teaches the method of claim 7.
Hierons does not explicitly teach transmitting, to a financial account associated with the at least one content provider, a payment of the monetary fee amount in acceptance of the offer.
Peters, however, teaches an online marketplace for creative works (i.e. abstract), including the know technique of transmitting, to a financial account associated with the at least one content provider, a payment of the monetary fee amount in acceptance of the offer (Peters, see at least: “Buyers 126 can then start placing bids 130 within the marketplace, and the bid effectively ends 132 in an allotted period of time. The marketplace function of the present invention determines the winning bid 134 and a message is sent out 136 through the messaging interface within the present invention to notify both the seller 122 and the buyer 126 of the transaction. By agreeing to the terms of service of using the marketplace function of the present invention, the seller and buyer conclude the marketplace transaction through previously stipulated trading activities 138. [i.e. payment of the monetary fee amount in acceptance of the offer] The marketplace feature then completes an e-commerce transaction using secure and encrypted connections to the external bank 140 account servers both the buyer 126 and the seller 122 [i.e. transmitting, to a financial account associated with the at least one content provider, a payment]” [0053]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Hierons with Peters for the reasons identified above with respect to claim 1.
Regarding claim 10, Hierons in view of Peters teaches the method of claim 6.
Hierons in view of Peters does not explicitly teach the offer further comprising a solicitation for a future notification upon one or more authors of the at least one content item having perfected an ownership right in at least one additional content item.
Stone, however, teaches a digital marketplace (i.e. [0042]) including the known technique of the offer further comprising a solicitation for a future notification upon one or more authors of the at least one content item having perfected an ownership right in at least one additional content item (Stone, see at least: “This anonymous marketing system may be utilized to provide “direct push” style marketing to a user holding specific book titles in their library using the address associated with the NFT. Though direct, this marketing may be anonymous because it may be based on the wallet address for the NFT. For example, such an anonymous marketing system configuration may be utilized to send a marketing message to 10,000 people that have a specific book title. Individuals may be able to choose if they want to receive (or not receive) such marketing messages [i.e. wherein the offer further comprises] by adjusting the notification settings on their computing devices. With the anonymous marketing system configuration, authors and publishers can communicate directly with an end consumer. In addition, the anonymous marketing system configuration also may be utilized to provide rewards to users who meet select criteria, such as having a designated number of titles from a single author. Given the titles in a user's library, the anonymous marketing system may be configured to notify users when there may be a topic of interest, such as a book signing or new title by the same author [i.e. a solicitation for a future notification upon one or more authors of the at least one content item having perfected an ownership right in at least one additional content item]” [0059]). This known technique is applicable to the method of Hierons in view of Peters as they both share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to a digital marketplace.
It would have been recognized that applying the known technique of the offer further comprising a solicitation for a future notification upon one or more authors of the at least one content item having perfected an ownership right in at least one additional content item, as taught by Stone, to the teachings of Hierons in view of Peters would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate such references into similar methods. Further, adding the modification of the offer further comprising a solicitation for a future notification upon one or more authors of the at least one content item having perfected an ownership right in at least one additional content item, as taught by Stone, into the method of Hierons in view of Peters would have been recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art as resulting in an improved method that would provide more secure digital rights management (Stone, [0044]).
Claims 17 and 18-19 recite limitations directed towards a server computing system. The limitations recited in claims 17 and 18-19 are parallel in nature to those addressed above for claims 7 and 9-10, respectively, and are therefore rejected for those same reasons set forth above in claims 7 and 9-10, respectively.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
-Cracco et al. (US 2022/0335507 A1) teaches systems and methods for global, integrated discovery and connectivity for creators, owners and/or agents of video content (“sellers”), seeking involvement in a licensing or transaction purchasing process for their projects.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ARIELLE E WEINER whose telephone number is (571)272-9007. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5:00.
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, Maria-Teresa (Marissa) Thein can be reached at 571-272-764. 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.
/ARIELLE E WEINER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3689