DETAILED ACTION
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 12 December 2025 has been entered.
Claims 1-20 are currently under consideration. The Office acknowledges the amendments to claims 1, 2, 5, 7, 10, 11, 14, 16, 19, and 20.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 1-20 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 1 recites the limitation "the preset tipping operation" in lines 9-10. The claim previously recites “at least one preset tipping operation,” so it is not clear which of the possibly multiple operations this limitation refers to.
Claim 1 also recites the limitation "the at least one viewer device" in line 11. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim; the claim only previously recites “at least one of the plurality of viewer devices.”
Claim 2 recites the limitation "the preset tipping operation" in line 3. It is not clear if this refer to the preset tipping operation recited in lines 9-10 of claim 1 or to one of the possibly multiple operations recited previously in claim 1.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the actual tipping operation" in line 3. The claim previously recites “at least one actual tipping operation,” so it is not clear which of the possibly multiple operations this limitation refers to.
Claim 5 also recites the limitation "the preset tipping operation" in line 4. It is not clear if this refer to the preset tipping operation recited in lines 9-10 of claim 1 or to one of the possibly multiple operations recited previously in claim 1.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the preset tipping operation" in line 2. It is not clear if this refer to the preset tipping operation recited in lines 9-10 of claim 1 or to one of the possibly multiple operations recited previously in claim 1.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the preset tipping operation" in line 1. It is not clear if this refer to the preset tipping operation recited in lines 9-10 of claim 1 or to one of the possibly multiple operations recited previously in claim 1.
Claim 9 recites the limitation “a tip amount” in line 3. It is not clear if this refers to the tip amount recited in claim 1 or to a separate tip amount.
Claim 9 also recites the limitation "the preset tipping operation" in line 3. It is not clear if this refer to the preset tipping operation recited in lines 9-10 of claim 1 or to one of the possibly multiple operations recited previously in claim 1.
Claim 9 also recites the limitation "the tip amount having been deducted by a third party" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 2-9 are rejected by virtue of their dependence upon at least one rejected base claim.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the preset tipping operation" in lines 12-13. The claim previously recites “at least one preset tipping operation,” so it is not clear which of the possibly multiple operations this limitation refers to.
Claim 10 also recites the limitation "the at least one viewer device" in line 14. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim; the claim only previously recites “at least one of the plurality of viewer devices.”
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the preset tipping operation" in line 4. It is not clear if this refer to the preset tipping operation recited in lines 12-13 of claim 10 or to one of the possibly multiple operations recited previously in claim 10.
Claim 14 recites the limitation "the actual tipping operation" in line 3. The claim previously recites “at least one actual tipping operation,” so it is not clear which of the possibly multiple operations this limitation refers to.
Claim 14 also recites the limitation "the preset tipping operation" in line 4. It is not clear if this refer to the preset tipping operation recited in lines 12-13 of claim 10 or to one of the possibly multiple operations recited previously in claim 10.
Claim 15 recites the limitation "the preset tipping operation" in line 2. It is not clear if this refer to the preset tipping operation recited in lines 12-13 of claim 10 or to one of the possibly multiple operations recited previously in claim 10.
Claim 16 recites the limitation "the preset tipping operation" in lines 1-2. It is not clear if this refer to the preset tipping operation recited in lines 12-13 of claim 10 or to one of the possibly multiple operations recited previously in claim 10.
Claim 18 recites the limitation “a tip amount” in line 3. It is not clear if this refers to the tip amount recited in claim 10 or to a separate tip amount.
Claim 18 also recites the limitation "the preset tipping operation" in line 3. It is not clear if this refer to the preset tipping operation recited in lines 12-13 of claim 10 or to one of the possibly multiple operations recited previously in claim 10.
Claim 18 also recites the limitation "the tip amount having been deducted by a third party" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 11-18 are rejected by virtue of their dependence upon at least one rejected base claim.
Claim 19 recites the limitation "the preset tipping operation" in line 10. The claim previously recites “at least one preset tipping operation,” so it is not clear which of the possibly multiple operations this limitation refers to.
Claim 19 also recites the limitation "the at least one viewer device" in line 12. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim; the claim only previously recites “at least one of the plurality of viewer devices.”
Claim 20 recites the limitation "the preset tipping operation" in line 4. It is not clear if this refer to the preset tipping operation recited in line 10 of claim 19 or to one of the possibly multiple operations recited previously in claim 19.
Claim 20 is rejected by virtue of its dependence upon claim 19.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-20 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: none of the prior art of record teaches or reasonably suggests such systems or methods that include deducting and holding a tip amount corresponding to a preset tipping operation from a viewer user, obtaining actual feedback of at least one of broadcast content hosted by a model user and an action associated with a model accessory used by the model user, determining an occurrence of the actual feedback based on predefined feedback within a predetermined period, and executing an actual tipping operation by releasing and transmitting at least a portion of the tip amount from the viewer user to the model user.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered and are persuasive in light of the amendments. The rejections have been withdrawn.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THADDEUS B COX whose telephone number is (571)270-5132. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-6pm.
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, Jason M. Sims can be reached at (571)272-7540. 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.
/THADDEUS B COX/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3791
Prosecution Insights