DETAILED ACTION
Acknowledgements
The amendment filed 9/23/2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 1-10 are pending.
Claims 4-10 are withdrawn.
Claims 1-3 have been examined.
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 .
Election/Restrictions
Restriction to one of the following inventions is required under 35 U.S.C. 121:
I. Claims 2-3, drawn to payment for content based on permissions, classified in G06Q 20/1235.
II. Claims 4-7, drawn to evaluating an agent, classified in G06Q 30/0282.
III. Claims 8-10, drawn to determining a difficulty level of negotiation, classified in G06Q 50/188.
The inventions are independent or distinct, each from the other because:
Inventions I-III are related as subcombinations disclosed as usable together in a single combination. The subcombinations are distinct if they do not overlap in scope and are not obvious variants, and if it is shown that at least one subcombination is separately usable. In the instant case, subcombination I has separate utility such as processing a payment for access to content after determining that a user has permission to access content. Subcombination II has separate utility such as determining a rating or evaluation value for an agent. Subcombination III has separate utility such as determining the difficulty level of negotiation for rights to a piece of content based on various factors. See MPEP § 806.05(d).
The examiner has required restriction between subcombinations usable together. Where applicant elects a subcombination and claims thereto are subsequently found allowable, any claim(s) depending from or otherwise requiring all the limitations of the allowable subcombination will be examined for patentability in accordance with 37 CFR 1.104. See MPEP § 821.04(a). Applicant is advised that if any claim presented in a divisional application is anticipated by, or includes all the limitations of, a claim that is allowable in the present application, such claim may be subject to provisional statutory and/or nonstatutory double patenting rejections over the claims of the instant application.
Restriction for examination purposes as indicated is proper because all the inventions listed in this action are independent or distinct for the reasons given above and there would be a serious search and/or examination burden if restriction were not required because one or more of the following reasons apply:
The inventions have acquired a separate status in the art in view of their different classification;
The inventions have acquired a separate status in the art due to their recognized divergent subject matter; and
The inventions require a different field of search (e.g., searching different classes /subclasses or electronic resources, or employing different search strategies or search queries).
Applicant is advised that the reply to this requirement to be complete must include (i) an election of an invention to be examined even though the requirement may be traversed (37 CFR 1.143) and (ii) identification of the claims encompassing the elected invention.
Claim 1 links inventions I-III. The restriction requirement between the linked inventions is subject to the nonallowance of the linking claim, claim 1. Upon the indication of allowability of the linking claim, the restriction requirement as to the linked inventions shall be withdrawn and any claim(s) depending from or otherwise requiring all the limitations of the allowable linking claim will be rejoined and fully examined for patentability in accordance with 37 CFR 1.104 Claims that require all the limitations of an allowable linking claim will be entered as a matter of right if the amendment is presented prior to final rejection or allowance, whichever is earlier. Amendments submitted after final rejection are governed by 37 CFR 1.116; amendments submitted after allowance are governed by 37 CFR 1.312.
Applicant(s) are advised that if any claim presented in a divisional application is anticipated by, or includes all the limitations of, the allowable linking claim, such claim may be subject to provisional statutory and/or nonstatutory double patenting rejections over the claims of the instant application. Where a restriction requirement is withdrawn, the provisions of 35 U.S.C. 121 are no longer applicable. In re Ziegler, 443 F.2d 1211, 1215, 170 USPQ 129, 131-32 (CCPA 1971). See also MPEP § 804.01.
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I in the reply filed on 9/23/2025 is acknowledged.
Because Group I (claims 2-3) in the updated restriction requirement above corresponds to Group I which was elected by applicant in response to the restriction requirement mailed 7/31/2025, claims 2-3 along with linking claim 1 are elected and examined below.
Claims 4-10 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected group, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 9/23/2025.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitations use a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitations are: “an electronic ledger management unit configured to manage . . .,” “a user permission/non-permission determination unit configured to . . . determine . . .,” and “a payment processing unit configured to . . . distribute . . .,” in claim 1, as well as the payment processing unit in claims 2 and 3.
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have these limitations interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
In the instant case, claims 1-3 are directed to a system comprising units which invoke 112(f). Therefore, these claims fall within the four statutory categories of invention.
The claims recite maintaining a record of rightsholders for portions of works of content, determining whether to permit use of the content based on the votes of the rightsholders, and distributing a royalty to the rightsholders for use of the content, which is an abstract idea. Specifically, the claims recite “. . . manage an . . . ledger including a content management table that records a rights holder in association with each of a plurality of divided blocks obtained by dividing content stored . . . into a plurality of blocks,” “. . . when a user applies to use a whole of the content, or one or more divided blocks of the plurality of divided blocks, determine whether to permit the use, based on a voting result indicating whether to permit the use from each rights holder of the divided blocks for which the user has applied to use,” and “ . . . when the use permission/non-permission determination unit determines to permit the use and the user pays a usage fee, distribute a distribution amount based on the usage fee to approving rights holders who have voted to permit the use, and to disapproving rights holders who have voted to not permit the use,” which is grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas in prong one of step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test (MPEP 2106.04 & 2106.04(a)) because the claims recite functions which involve maintaining a table containing a record identifying rights holders for each portion of a work of content, and when a user seeks permission to use the content, determining whether to permit the use based on a vote of the rights holders, and then distributing a usage fee paid by the user among the rights holders, which is a commercial or legal interaction. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea (See MPEP 2106.04(a)).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because, when analyzed under prong two of step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test (See MPEP 2106.04(d)), the additional elements of the claims such as a content management apparatus comprising an electronic ledger management unit, a user permission/non-permission determination unit, a payment processing unit, and a content storing unit, merely use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Specifically, these additional elements perform the steps or functions of “. . . manage an . . . ledger including a content management table that records a rights holder in association with each of a plurality of divided blocks obtained by dividing content stored . . . into a plurality of blocks,” “. . . when a user applies to use a whole of the content, or one or more divided blocks of the plurality of divided blocks, determine whether to permit the use, based on a voting result indicating whether to permit the use from each rights holder of the divided blocks for which the user has applied to use,” and “ . . . when the use permission/non-permission determination unit determines to permit the use and the user pays a usage fee, distribute a distribution amount based on the usage fee to approving rights holders who have voted to permit the use, and to disapproving rights holders who have voted to not permit the use.” Viewed as a whole, the use of a processor/computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it requires no more than a computer performing functions that correspond to acts required to carry out the abstract idea. The additional elements do not involve improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field (MPEP 2106.05(a)), and the claims do not apply or use the abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP 2106.05(e) and Vanda Memo). Therefore, the claims do not, for example, purport to improve the functioning of a computer. Nor do they effect an improvement in any other technology or technical field. Accordingly, the additional elements do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when analyzed under step 2B of the Alice/Mayo test (See MPEP 2106.05), the additional elements of using a content management apparatus comprising an electronic ledger management unit, a user permission/non-permission determination unit, a payment processing unit, and a content storing unit to perform the steps amounts to no more than using a computer or processor to automate and/or implement the abstract idea of maintaining a record of rightsholders for portions of works of content, determining whether to permit use of the content based on the votes of the rightsholders, and distributing a royalty to the rightsholders for use of the content. As discussed above, taking the claim elements separately, these additional elements perform the steps or functions of “. . . manage an . . . ledger including a content management table that records a rights holder in association with each of a plurality of divided blocks obtained by dividing content stored . . . into a plurality of blocks,” “. . . when a user applies to use a whole of the content, or one or more divided blocks of the plurality of divided blocks, determine whether to permit the use, based on a voting result indicating whether to permit the use from each rights holder of the divided blocks for which the user has applied to use,” and “ . . . when the use permission/non-permission determination unit determines to permit the use and the user pays a usage fee, distribute a distribution amount based on the usage fee to approving rights holders who have voted to permit the use, and to disapproving rights holders who have voted to not permit the use.” These functions correspond to the actions required to perform the abstract idea. Viewed as a whole, the combination of elements recited in the claims merely recite the concept of maintaining a record of rightsholders for portions of works of content, determining whether to permit use of the content based on the votes of the rightsholders, and distributing a royalty to the rightsholders for use of the content. Therefore, the use of these additional elements does no more than employ the computer as a tool to automate and/or implement the abstract idea. The use of a computer or processor to merely automate and/or implement the abstract idea cannot provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself (MPEP 2106.05 (f) & (h)). Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 2-3 further describe the abstract idea of maintaining a record of rightsholders for portions of works of content, determining whether to permit use of the content based on the votes of the rightsholders, and distributing a royalty to the rightsholders for use of the content. Specifically, both claim 2 and claim 3 further describe the particular manner in which the royalties are distributed to the rights holders, which is part of the abstract idea. The dependent claims do not include additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or that provide significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, the dependent claims are also not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 recites “a use permission/non-permission determination unit configured to . . . determine . . . .” The limitation recites the generic placeholder “a use permission/non-permission determination unit” coupled with the function of “configured to . . . determine . . . .” The limitation also does not recite sufficient structure for performing the claimed function. Therefore, this limitation invokes 112(f). However, the specification does not describe any structure corresponding to the user permission/non-permission determination unit. Although the specification states, in paragraph 14, that the content management apparatus may be a computer storing a computer program for executing the units numbered 10 to 17 in Figure 1, the specification does not describe the use permission/non-permission determination unit 18 of Figure 23 as being part of the computer program executed on the computer. Nor does the specification describe any other structure corresponding to the use permission/non-permission determination unit 18. Therefore, the specification does not provide a sufficient written description for this limitation.
Claims 2-3 are also rejected as each depends on claim 1.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim limitation “a use permission/non-permission determination unit configured to . . . determine . . .” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The limitation recites the generic placeholder “a use permission/non-permission determination unit” coupled with the function of “configured to . . . determine . . . .” The limitation is also not modified by sufficient structure for performing the claimed function. Therefore, this limitation invokes 112(f). The specification does not describe any structure corresponding to the use permission/non-permission determination unit. Although the specification states, in paragraph 14, that the content management apparatus may be a computer storing a computer program for executing the units numbered 10 to 17 in Figure 1, the specification does not describe use permission/non-permission determination unit 18 of Figure 23 as being part of the computer program executed on the computer. Nor does the specification describe any other structure corresponding to the use permission/non-permission determination unit 18. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claims 2-3 are also rejected as each depends on claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Kawase (US 2024/0037207).
Regarding claim 1, Kawase discloses a content asset management apparatus comprising:
an electronic ledger management unit configured to manage an electronic ledger including a content management table that records a rights holder in association with each of a plurality of divided blocks obtained by dividing content stored in a content storing unit into a plurality of blocks (Kawase ¶¶ 63-64, 70-72, 83-98, 186, 289-291, 382. 388-391);
a use permission/non-permission determination unit configured to, when a user applies to use a whole of the content, or one or more divided blocks of the plurality of divided blocks, determine whether to permit the use, based on a voting result indicating whether to permit the use from each rights holder of the divided blocks for which the user has applied to use (Kawase ¶ 429); and
a payment processing unit configured to, when the use permission/non-permission determination unit determines to permit the use and the user pays a usage fee, distribute a distribution amount based on the usage fee to approving rights holders who have voted to permit the use, and to disapproving rights holders who have voted to not permit the use (Kawase ¶¶ 311-314, 335, 381-383).
Statement Regarding Prior Art for Claims 2 and 3
Claim 2 requires that the payment processing unit distributes the distribution amount such that a distribution amount of each of the disapproving rights holders is higher than a distribution amount of each of the approving rights holders at the time of at least a first vote for determining whether to permit the use. Claim 3 further requires distributing the distribution amount such that a distribution amount of each of the disapproving rights holders relative to a distribution amount of each of the approving rights holders is smaller for each of a second vote and thereafter for determining whether to permit the use.
The closest prior art of Kawase, cited for claim 1 above, discloses distributing a distribution amount based on the usage fee to each of the rights holders (Kawase ¶¶ 311-314, 335, 381-383). Additionally, Calvin (US 2020/0311816) discloses rewarding voters differently based on their reputation or whether they voted for the side that received the majority of the votes (Calvin ¶¶ 23-24, 204, 234, 256-258, 256-265).
However, the prior art does not disclose, neither singly nor in combination, the specific manner of distributing royalties recited in claims 2 and 3 in which the payment processing unit distributes the distribution amount such that a distribution amount of each of the disapproving rights holders is higher than a distribution amount of each of the approving rights holders at the time of at least a first vote for determining whether to permit the use, and then distributes the distribution amount such that a distribution amount of each of the disapproving rights holders relative to a distribution amount of each of the approving rights holders is smaller for each of a second vote and thereafter for determining whether to permit the use.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Calvin (US 2020/0311816) discloses rewarding voters differently based on their reputation or whether they voted for the side that received the majority of the votes (Calvin ¶¶ 23-24, 204, 234, 256-258, 256-265).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Mohammad A. Nilforoush whose telephone number is (571)270-5298. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 12pm-7pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, John W. Hayes can be reached at 571-272-6708. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Mohammad A. Nilforoush/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3697