DETAILED ACTION
This Office action is in reply to correspondence filed 7 May 2026 in regard to application no. 18/835,830. Claims 2-9, 11, 14-19, 21, 23, 24, 26-30, 32, 34-38, 40-42, 44-46, 48-51, 52-56, 59, 60, 62 and 67 have been cancelled. Claims 1, 10, 12, 13, 20, 22, 25, 31, 33, 39, 43, 47, 52, 57, 58, 61, 63-66 and 68-75 are pending and are considered below.
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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 7 May 2026 has been entered.
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, 10, 12, 13, 20, 22, 25, 31, 33, 39, 43, 47, 52, 57, 58, 61, 63-66 and 68-75 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims include allowing a person (who is an audience member) to request a song and make a payment, providing suggestions to the person, facilitate the payment, and communicate the request to another person (a DJ).
First, making payments is a fundamental business practice and a commercial interaction, each of which is among the "certain methods of organizing human activity" deemed abstract. Second, in the absence of computers, the process could be performed mentally and by consulting paper records. A disc jockey can have a printed list of songs she can play; a customer can hand currency to the disc jockey and verbally request a song; beforehand, anyone such as the person’s friends can suggest a song to request. None of this presents any practical difficulty, and none requires any technology beyond paper records. Therefore the claims recite abstraction in the form of certain methods of organizing human activity and in the form of mental processes.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because aside from the bare inclusion of a generic computer, discussed below, nothing is done beyond what was set forth above, which does not go beyond using a generic computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea. See MPEP § 2106.05(f).
As the claims only manipulate data pertaining to payments, song selections and the like, they do not improve the "functioning of a computer" or of "any other technology or technical field". See MPEP § 2106.05(a). Contrary to the assertion in the specification, they do not apply the abstract idea "with, or by use of a particular machine", MPEP § 2106.05(b), as the below-cited Guidance is clear that a generic computer is not the particular machine envisioned, and the Examiner can find no authority to support the applicant's assertion that a generic computer becomes a special-purpose computer merely because it has been programmed to perform a business process.
They do not effect a "transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing", MPEP § 2106.05(c). First, such data, being intangible, are not a particular article at all. Second, the manipulation is neither transformative nor reductive; as the courts have pointed out, in the end, data are still data.
They do not apply the abstract idea "in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking [it] to a particular technological environment", MPEP § 2106.05(e), as the lack of algorithmic and technical detail in the claims is so as not to go beyond such a general linkage.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional claim limitations, considered individually and as an ordered combination, are insufficient to elevate an otherwise-ineligible claim.
Claim 1 includes a microprocessor and various labelled logic. These elements are recited at a high degree of generality and the specification does not meaningfully limit them, such that a generic computer will suffice. It only performs generic computer functions of nondescriptly manipulating data and sharing data with persons and/or other devices. Generic computers performing generic computer functions, without an inventive concept, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
The type of information being manipulated does not impose meaningful limitations or render the idea less abstract. The claim elements when considered in ordered combination - a generic computer performing a chronological sequence of abstract steps - do nothing more than when they are analyzed individually.
The dependent claims further do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea: claims 10, 12, 20, 31, 43, 62, 65, 66 and 68 consist entirely of nonfunctional printed matter which bears no functional relation to the substrate and so is considered but given no patentable weight; as such, it has no impact on the eligibility analysis. Claims 13 and 70 is simply further descriptive of the type of information being manipulated. Claims 22, 27, 47, 57, 61, 63, 64 and 72-75 simply recite further, abstract manipulation of data. Claims 25, 33, 39, 58 and 69 simply recite accepting input, and claim 71 simply recites a destination of information.
The claims are not patent eligible. The Examiner has thoroughly reviewed the originally filed application, including the specification and drawing sheets, and finds nothing likely sufficient to overcome this rejection.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7 May 2026 in regard to the “judicial exception” under 35 U.S.C. § 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Based on the present amendment, the “statutory category” rejection is withdrawn, and the lack of rejection under § 102 or 103 is explained below.
In regard to § 101 and contrary to the applicant’s assertion, the Examiner indicated during the interview on May 4 that the suggested amendment would put the invention into a statutory category. We did not in any way discuss the judicial-exception rejection, which is the only outstanding rejection, and this was made clear in the Examiner’s summary of that interview.
For the reasons stated in the previous Office action, the claims are not patent eligible and the rejection is maintained.
Conclusion
As no rejection is made herein under 35 U.S.C. § 102 or 103, a brief review of the state of the art at the relevant time – the present claims have priority to March 2023 – is in order. In the previous Office action, claims were rejected based on the teaching of Herring et al. and, in some cases, combinations of Herring with various of Vanjani, Simon, Piccionielli, Schupak et al., and Roth. As the claims have been amended, further search and consideration were conducted.
Swain et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2012/0143665) disclose a system for influencing and predicting consumption of music. [title] A social media user “may recommend any song she finds in the system” and recommends such a song to a member of the “audience”, [0054] but this is an “audience” in social media terms – in more modern parlance, what we might call a follower – but not an audience in the physical music venue sense of the term.
None of the art, neither Swain nor the prior art previously made of record, alone or if combined, teach or suggest recommending to a venue audience member to request a particular song of a performer in the manner presently claimed, combined with the other presently-claimed limitations.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SCOTT C ANDERSON whose telephone number is (571)270-7442. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00 to 5:30.
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, Bennett Sigmond can be reached at (303) 297-4411. 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.
/SCOTT C ANDERSON/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3694
Prosecution Insights