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 .
Status of Claims
This is first office action on the merits in response to election filed on 01/20/2026.
Claims 1-11 are currently pending. Claims 8-11 have been withdrawn from further consideration. Claims 1-7 are currently pending and have been examined.
Priority
Applicant's claim for the benefit of PCT Application No. PCT/JP2023/009744 filed on 03/14/2023 is acknowledged. Applicant's claim for the benefit of Japanese Application Nos. JP2022-045848, JP2022-045849, JP2022-045850, JP2022-045851, JP2022-045852, JP2022-045853, JP2022-045854, JP2022-045855, JP2022-045856, JP2022-045857 filed on 03/22/2022 is acknowledged.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 09/20/2024, 09/25/2024, 04/08/2025, 04/21/2025, 05/20/2025, and 09/10/2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Election/Restrictions
Claims 8-11 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Group II, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 01/20/2026.
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 limitation(s) uses 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 limitation(s) is/are:
an evaluation value aggregation unit configured to generate an aggregation evaluation value by aggregating evaluation values obtained by one or more evaluators evaluating one or more of a plurality of divided blocks for each divided block in Claims 1 and 6 and an evaluation value assignment unit configured to assign, to one or more evaluators, shares of evaluation values for evaluating one or more divided blocks of the plurality of divided blocks in Claim 3; This element is described in Paragraph 0017 which teaches the content asset management apparatus 1 may be constituted by a computer and a non-transitory storage medium for storing a computer program (content asset management program). Due to the computer executing the content asset management program, the units from the communication unit 10 to the payment processing unit 17 shown in FIG. 1 may be functionally implemented.
an electronic ledger management unit configured to manage an electronic ledger including a content management table and an evaluator management table in Claims 1 and 6 and electronic ledger management unit manages the electronic ledger by using a blockchain including the server and one or more external servers that are connected to each other via a network and are different from the server in Claim 2 and the electronic ledger management unit manages an electronic ledger including the content management table and an evaluator management table that records an evaluator for each of the divided blocks, and the payment processing unit distributes the distribution amount to an evaluator of a divided block further used in Claim 7; This element is described in Paragraph 0017 which teaches the content asset management apparatus 1 may be constituted by a computer and a non-transitory storage medium for storing a computer program (content asset management program). Due to the computer executing the content asset management program, the units from the communication unit 10 to the payment processing unit 17 shown in FIG. 1 may be functionally implemented.
payment processing unit configured to aggregate usage fees paid by users when each of the users uses any one of the plurality of divided blocks for each of the divided blocks and configured to distribute a distribution amount based on the usage fees aggregated for each of the divided blocks to at least a rights holder of the used divided block in Claims 1 and 6; This element is described in Paragraph 0017 which teaches the content asset management apparatus 1 may be constituted by a computer and a non-transitory storage medium for storing a computer program (content asset management program). Due to the computer executing the content asset management program, the units from the communication unit 10 to the payment processing unit 17 shown in FIG. 1 may be functionally implemented.
a block division unit configured to divide content newly stored in the content storing unit into a plurality of blocks to generate a plurality of divided blocks in Claim 3 and the block division unit divides the content into a plurality of blocks at a position where a melody of the content changes in Claim 4 and the block division unit divides the content into a plurality of blocks at each position where a scene of the content changes in Claim 5; This element is described in Paragraph 0017 which teaches the content asset management apparatus 1 may be constituted by a computer and a non-transitory storage medium for storing a computer program (content asset management program). Due to the computer executing the content asset management program, the units from the communication unit 10 to the payment processing unit 17 shown in FIG. 1 may be functionally implemented.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. Therefore, by choosing to use a means-plus-function limitation and invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant limits that claim limitation to the disclosed structure, i.e., implementation by hardware or the combination of hardware and software, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) 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 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Under Step 1 of the Section 101 analysis, claims 1 and 6 are directed to a content asset management apparatus (an apparatus).
Under Step 2A Prong One, Claims 1 and 6 recite: an evaluation value aggregation unit configured to generate an aggregation evaluation value by aggregating evaluation values obtained by one or more evaluators evaluating one or more of a plurality of divided blocks for each divided block, the plurality of divided blocks being obtained by dividing content (i.e., musical piece including a plurality of tracks) stored in a content storing unit into a plurality of blocks; an electronic ledger management unit configured to manage an electronic ledger including a content management table and an evaluator management table, the content management table recording a rights holder for each of the divided blocks in association with the aggregation evaluation value generated by the evaluation value aggregation unit, and the evaluator management table recording the divided blocks in association with an evaluator for each of the divided blocks; and a payment processing unit configured to aggregate usage fees paid by users when each of the users uses any one of the plurality of divided blocks for each of the divided blocks and configured to distribute a distribution amount based on the usage fees aggregated for each of the divided blocks to at least a rights holder of the used divided block.
Claims 1 and 6 as drafted include language (see underlined language above) that recite an abstract idea of taking and dividing a digital creation, then setting a price for the divided segments of the digital creation, which falls under the abstract idea of certain methods of organizing human activity (i.e., marketing or sales activities or behaviors, business relations).
Under Step 2A Prong Two, the additional claim element(s), considered individually, do not apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception and in a manner that integrates the exception into a practical application of the exception. The additional claim elements(s) “a content asset management apparatus,” “an evaluation value aggregation unit,” “an electronic ledger management unit,” and “payment processing unit,” generally “apply” the concept of taking and dividing a digital creation, then setting a price for the divided segments of the digital creation on a computer. The claimed computer components are recited at a high level of generality and are merely invoked as tools to perform the abstract idea. Simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic computer is not a practical application of the abstract idea. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Under Step 2A Prong Two, the additional claim element(s), considered in combination, do not apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception and in a manner that integrates the exception into a practical application of the exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a content asset management apparatus, an evaluation value aggregation unit, an electronic ledger management unit, and payment processing unit amounts to no more than applying the abstract idea of taking and dividing a digital creation, then setting a price for the divided segments of the digital creation. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Under Step 2B, the additional claim element(s), considered individually and in combination, do not provide meaningful limitation(s) to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claim(s) amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself for similar reasons outlined under Step 2A Prong Two.
A similar analysis can be applied to dependent claim 2 which claims “the electronic ledger management unit manages the electronic ledger by using a blockchain including the server and one or more external servers that are connected to each other via a network and are different from the server” which merely elaborate on the abstract idea without reciting any new additional elements. When the limitations are considered individually and as a whole in combination with the independent claims from which they depend from, the claims do not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
A similar analysis can be applied to dependent claim 3 which claims “a block division unit configured to divide content newly stored in the content storing unit into a plurality of blocks to generate a plurality of divided blocks; and an evaluation value assignment unit configured to assign, to one or more evaluators, shares of evaluation values for evaluating one or more divided blocks of the plurality of divided blocks” which merely elaborate on the abstract idea without reciting any new additional elements. When the limitations are considered individually and as a whole in combination with the independent claims from which they depend from, the claims do not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
A similar analysis can be applied to dependent claim 4 which claims “wherein when the content is a musical piece, the block division unit divides the content into a plurality of blocks at a position where a melody of the content changes” which merely elaborate on the abstract idea without reciting any new additional elements. When the limitations are considered individually and as a whole in combination with the independent claims from which they depend from, the claims do not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
A similar analysis can be applied to dependent claim 5 which claims “wherein when the content is a movie, the block division unit divides the content into a plurality of blocks at each position where a scene of the content changes” which merely elaborate on the abstract idea without reciting any new additional elements. When the limitations are considered individually and as a whole in combination with the independent claims from which they depend from, the claims do not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
A similar analysis can be applied to dependent claim 7 which claims “wherein the electronic ledger management unit manages an electronic ledger including the content management table and an evaluator management table that records an evaluator for each of the divided blocks, and the payment processing unit distributes the distribution amount to an evaluator of a divided block further used” which merely elaborate on the abstract idea without reciting any new additional elements. When the limitations are considered individually and as a whole in combination with the independent claims from which they depend from, the claims do not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102(a)(2)
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.
Claims 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Lin (US 20230013584).
Regarding Claims 1 and 6, Lin teaches a content asset management apparatus (Paragraph 0086 teaches the disclosure further discloses a computer readable storage medium, such as hard-disk drive, optical disk, flash disk, memory, etc.; the storage medium records the computer executable codes in the computer program product; when computer or server (that is, the creation managing platform) reads the storage medium and executes the computer executable codes, the execution steps (as shown in FIG. 2 and FIG. 3 ) in the managing method of the disclosure may be implemented) comprising: an evaluation value aggregation unit configured to generate an aggregation evaluation value by aggregating evaluation values obtained by one or more evaluators evaluating one or more of a plurality of divided blocks for each divided block, the plurality of divided blocks being obtained by dividing content (i.e., a musical piece including a plurality of tracks) stored in a content storing unit into a plurality of blocks (Paragraphs 0048, 0062-0063, 0065, 0068, 0070, 0072, and 0074 teach an AI model may be configured to respectively label the fragmentary creations according to the text record and compute the weighting value of each fragmentary creation relative to the entire digital creation; the sum of all weighting values of the fragmentary creations is one; specifically, the AI model may be configured to determine the value of each fragmentary creation relative to the digital creation based on the text record corresponding to each fragmentary creation; therefore, the AI model may compute the weighting value of each fragmentary creation based on the value; further, after each fragmentary creation is being searched, purchased, or/and used on the creation managing platform, the creation managing platform may be configured to record the information such as frequency, time, review of being searched, purchased, or/and used; as a result, the AI model may adjust the weighting value of each fragmentary creation according to the state of each fragmentary creation being searched, purchased, or used; based on huge amount of digital creation to perform deep learning, the AI model may learn the importance of the parameters, such as all kinds of text record, creation section, creation content, relative to the entire digital creation, and further compute the weighting value of each part in the digital creation; the creator may obtain the suggested weighting value of each fragmentary creation from the AI model on the creation managing platform; the creation managing platform may be configured to simultaneously give the determination standard of the weighting value as reference for the creator; for example, the creation managing platform may be configured to display the explanation of determination standard, such as “the first fragmentary creation is corresponding to the prelude of the song, the weighting value is 0.1; the third fragmentary creation is corresponding to the chorus of the song, the weighting value is 0.6”, “the first fragmentary creation is corresponding to the introduction of the article, the weighting value is 0.1; the fifth fragmentary creation is corresponding to the conclusion of the article, the weighting value is 0.4;” after the determination standard is confirmed, the creator may choose to directly adopt the suggested determination standard from the creation managing platform; the weighting values of the fragmentary creations in the digital creation uploaded by the creator are confirmed; therefore, the creation managing platform may be configured to compute the fragmentary price of each fragmentary creations according to the price of the digital creation set by the creator and the weighting value of each fragmentary creations; it is worth mentioning that the sum of all weighting values of the fragmentary creations is one, thereby the sum of all fragmentary prices of the fragmentary creations being the price of the digital creation; after the user confirmed, the creation managing platform may store the charging approach and profit-sharing mode set by the creator, multiple labeled fragmentary creations, weighting value of each fragmentary creation and fragmentary price, thereby generating the online (for example, on the blockchain) executable smart contract); an electronic ledger management unit configured to manage an electronic ledger including a content management table and an evaluator management table (Paragraphs 0022, 0025, and 0075 teach the creation managing platform is instantiated on the blockchain; the creator may upload the digital creation to the creation managing platform and instantiate the smart contract on the creation managing platform to make the smart contract be executed on the blockchain; one technical feature of the disclosure is that when the creator uploads a digital creation to the creation managing platform, the creation managing platform may analyze the digital creation through the managing method of the disclosure to segment the digital creation into multiple fragmentary creations; each fragmentary creation is corresponding to different portions of the digital creation, and the fragmentary creations may be set to have different weighting values, fragmentary prices, charging approaches, and using manners from one another; the smart contract is instantiated on the blockchain, and may include the encrypted signature of the creator and the tracking code of the digital creation; after the creation managing platform executes the smart contract and the user downloads one or multiple fragmentary creations on the creation managing platform, the source of the fragmentary creations may be effectively tracked and authenticated to achieve the purpose of traceability), the content management table recording a rights holder for each of the divided blocks in association with the aggregation evaluation value generated by the evaluation value aggregation unit, and the evaluator management table recording the divided blocks in association with an evaluator for each of the divided blocks (Paragraphs 0019 and 0075 teach the creation managing platform may be ran (or operated) on the computer or cloud server, and establish connection with the electronic devices (for example, the smart phone, tablet computer, personal computer, or server) of one or multiple creators through the Internet to receive the digital creations respectively uploaded by the creators; the smart contract is instantiated on the blockchain, and may include the encrypted signature of the creator and the tracking code of the digital creation; as a result, after the creation managing platform executes the smart contract and the user downloads one or multiple fragmentary creations on the creation managing platform, the source of the fragmentary creations may be effectively tracked and authenticated to achieve the purpose of traceability); and a payment processing unit configured to aggregate usage fees paid by users when each of the users uses any one of the plurality of divided blocks for each of the divided blocks and configured to distribute a distribution amount based on the usage fees aggregated for each of the divided blocks to at least a rights holder of the used divided block (Paragraphs 0078-0080 teach if the user executes the action related to the smart contract on the creation managing platform, the creation managing platform is configured to instruct the user to download and use one or multiple fragmentary creations indicated by the transaction actions, and confirm the charging approach set by the creator based on content of the smart contract; if the smart contract indicates the charging approach is the requiring payment approach, the creation managing platform is configured to charge the user correspondingly according to the fragmentary prices of one or multiple fragmentary creations indicated by the smart contract; further, the creation managing platform is configured to confirm the profit-sharing mode set by the creator based on content of the smart contract, and automatically allocate creation charge to the creator according to the profit-sharing mode; if the profit-sharing mode set in the smart contract is immediate payment, the creation managing platform is immediately allocating the creation charge to the creator; if the profit-sharing mode set in the smart contract is monthly payment, the creation managing platform is allocating the accumulated creation charge to the creator once per month; it is worth mentioning that, when the smart contract is being instantiated, the creator may further set to receive fiat currency or digital currency).
Regarding Claim 2, Lin teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above; and Lin further teaches wherein the content asset management apparatus is configured by a server, and the electronic ledger management unit manages the electronic ledger by using a blockchain including the server and one or more external servers that are connected to each other via a network and are different from the server (Paragraphs 0019 and 0022 teach the creation managing platform may be ran (or operated) on the computer or cloud server, and establish connection with the electronic devices of one or multiple creators through the Internet to receive the digital creations respectively uploaded by the creators; further, the creation managing platform may establish connection with the electronic devices of one or multiple users through the Internet to accept the log-in from the user for performing the action, such as searching, purchasing, downloading, using, and re-creating, etc., to the required creation on the creation managing platform; the creation managing platform is instantiated on the blockchain; the creator may upload the digital creation to the creation managing platform and instantiate the smart contract on the creation managing platform to make the smart contract be executed on the blockchain; the creation managing platform may add the encrypted signature of the creator and the tracking code of the digital creation into the smart contract by executing the smart contract on the blockchain).
Regarding Claim 3, Lin teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above; and Lin further teaches a block division unit configured to divide content newly stored in the content storing unit into a plurality of blocks to generate a plurality of divided blocks; and an evaluation value assignment unit configured to assign, to one or more evaluators, shares of evaluation values for evaluating one or more divided blocks of the plurality of divided blocks (Paragraphs 0036 and 0062-0063 teach the creation managing platform is configured to process the digital creation uploaded by the creator through specific algorithm to generate the text record corresponding to content of the digital creation; further, the creation managing platform is configured to analyze the digital creation through the pre-trained artificial intelligence (not shown in figures) to divide the digital creation into multiple fragmentary creations; the AI model is configured to compute the weighting value of each fragmentary creation relative to the entire digital creation; the sum of all weighting values of the fragmentary creations is one; specifically, the AI model may be configured to determine the value of each fragmentary creation relative to the digital creation based on the text record corresponding to each fragmentary creation; therefore, the AI model may compute the weighting value of each fragmentary creation based on the value).
Regarding Claim 4, Lin teaches all the limitations of claim 3 above; and Lin further teaches wherein when the content is a musical piece, the block division unit divides the content into a plurality of blocks at a position where a melody of the content changes (Paragraph 0026 teaches if the digital creation is a music creation, each fragmentary creation may be different time periods or different sections (for example, prelude, verse, chorus, interlude, epilogue, etc.) in the music creation).
Regarding Claim 5, Lin teaches all the limitations of claim 3 above; and Lin further teaches wherein when the content is a movie, the block division unit divides the content into a plurality of blocks at each position where a scene of the content changes (Paragraph 0026 teaches if the digital creation is a video creation, each fragmentary creation may be different time periods (for example, every ten seconds as one fragmentary creation) or different scenes (for example, talking scene, driving scene, fighting scene, etc.) in the video creation).
Regarding Claim 7, Lin teaches all the limitations of claim 6 above; and Lin further teaches wherein the electronic ledger management unit manages an electronic ledger including the content management table and an evaluator management table that records an evaluator for each of the divided blocks, and the payment processing unit distributes the distribution amount to an evaluator of a divided block further used (Paragraphs 0068, 0072, and 0078-0079 teach the creation managing platform is configured to compute the weighting value of each fragmentary creation relative to the entire digital creation through the pre-trained AI model; the creation managing platform may be configured to compute the fragmentary price of each fragmentary creations according to the price of the digital creation set by the creator and the weighting value of each fragmentary creations; it is worth mentioning that the sum of all weighting values of the fragmentary creations is one, thereby the sum of all fragmentary prices of the fragmentary creations being the price of the digital creation; if the user executes the action related to the smart contract on the creation managing platform, the creation managing platform is configured to instruct the user to download and use one or multiple fragmentary creations indicated by the transaction actions, and confirm the charging approach set by the creator based on content of the smart contract; the charging approach may include a requiring payment approach, a free payment approach and a sponsorial payment approach, here is not intended to be limiting; if the smart contract indicates the charging approach is the requiring payment approach, the creation managing platform is configured to charge the user correspondingly according to the fragmentary prices of one or multiple fragmentary creations indicated by the smart contract; further, the creation managing platform is configured to confirm the profit-sharing mode set by the creator based on content of the smart contract, and automatically allocate creation charge to the creator according to the profit-sharing mode).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Rein et al. (US 20200090632) teaches a system and method for automatic AI-based song construction based on ideas of a user. It provides and benefits from a combination of expert knowledge resident in an expert engine which contains rules for a musically correct song generation and machine learning in an AI-based audio loop selection engine for the selection of fitting audio loops from a database of audio loops.
Stewart et al. (US 20200143469) teaches an improved distributed computer network server system that includes an enhanced computer memory system that simultaneously provides transparent access to securely-recorded data for verification while minimizing network bandwidth usage and consumed processing power. Such improved computer network may be useful in facilitating many types of unconventional networked computer functions, such as providing an electronic exchange platform that utilizes intellectual property (IP) rights of copyrightable works as currency. A network portal (e.g., website and/or mobile site) administered by the platform may facilitate sales or licensing of fractional IP rights of the works owned by the artists.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to COURTNEY JONES whose telephone number is (469) 295-9137. The examiner can normally be reached on 7:30 am - 4:30 pm CST (M-Th).
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, Neha Patel can be reached at (571) 270-1492. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/COURTNEY P JONES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3699