DETAILED ACTION
Acknowledgements
The amendment filed 4/28/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 1, 3-10 are pending.
Claims 4-10 are withdrawn.
Claims 1 and 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 .
Response to Amendment/Arguments
Regarding the rejection of the claims under 35 USC 101, applicant states that normally, in the content management system, each information is assigned to a third party for determining rights, while in the present case, the distribution amount is linked to the votes and is controlled such that disapproving rights holders have a distribution amount that is higher than the amount of each of the approving rights holders at the time of at least a first vote for determining whether to permit the use. Applicant states that the claims have features beyond conventional database management, and make a significant improvement. Applicant states that the claimed subject matter represents a non-conventional and non-generic arrangement.
Examiner notes, however, that while the present claims may differ from conventional content management systems and may be novel over the prior art, judicial exceptions need not be old or long-prevalent, and even newly discovered judicial exceptions are still exceptions, despite their novelty (See MPEP 2106.04 (I)). Here, the claims are directed to an abstract idea because the recited steps are directed to a business process or commercial process for determining the amount of a royalty to pay to rights holders. This does not provide a technical solution to a technical problem, but rather is directed to a commercial activity. Therefore, the claims fall within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas because they recite a commercial or legal interaction. The fact that the commercial or business process may be novel does not make it non-abstract. Further, the additional elements of the claims such as a content management server comprising a computer and a non-transitory storage medium for storing a content asset management program that causes the computer to execute the steps, as well as an electronic ledger and content storing unit for performing the steps, merely use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, and thus do not provide a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I in the replies filed on 9/23/2025 and 4/28/2026 is acknowledged.
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 replies filed on 9/23/2025 and 4/28/2026.
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 and 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 and 3 are directed to a server comprising a computer and a non-transitory storage medium. 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 “managing 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, a process of determining 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 “a process of, responsive to a determination to permit the use and the user pays a usage fee, to 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, 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,” 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 server comprising a computer and a non-transitory storage medium for storing a content asset management program that causes the computer to execute the steps, as well as an electronic ledger and content storing unit for performing the steps, merely use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Specifically, these additional elements perform the steps or functions of “managing 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, a process of determining 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 “a process of, responsive to a determination to permit the use and the user pays a usage fee, to 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, 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.” 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 server comprising a computer and a non-transitory storage medium for storing a content asset management program that causes the computer to execute the steps, as well as an electronic ledger and content storing unit for performing 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 “managing 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, a process of determining 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 “a process of, responsive to a determination to permit the use and the user pays a usage fee, to 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, 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.” 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 claim 3 further describes 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, claim 3 further describes 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.
Statement Regarding Prior Art
Regarding claims 1 and 3, the closest prior art of Kawase (US 2024/0037207) discloses:
managing 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);
when a user applies to use a whole of the content, or one or more divided blocks of the plurality of divided blocks, determining 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
responsive to a determination to permit the use and the user pays a usage fee, distributing 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).
Claim 1 further requires distributing 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 additionally 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.
Regarding these features, Kawase 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 1 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.
Kawase (US 2024/0037207) discloses:
managing 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);
when a user applies to use a whole of the content, or one or more divided blocks of the plurality of divided blocks, determining 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
responsive to a determination to permit the use and the user pays a usage fee, distributing 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).
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).
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to 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
Prosecution Insights