DETAILED ACTION
This is an office action on the merits in response to the communication filed on 4/15/2026.
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 .
Claims’ Status
Claims 1-20 are pending and are considered in this office action.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP §§ 706.02(l)(1) - 706.02(l)(3) for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1-20 are non-provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-11 of Patent No. US12314348B2 (Method and system for user content view protection). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are patentably distinct from each other because the scope of claim 1 of the instant application is broader than and fully encompasses the species claimed in claim 1 of Patent US12314348B2, in which they have common limitations and the same inventive entity. The narrower scope of claim 1 of the Patent No. US12314348B2 anticipates the broader scope of claim 1 of the instant application because a species always anticipates a genus. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to remove or add the additional limitations in the patents/co-pending applications above to result in the instant claims.
Claim 1 of the Instant application
Claim 1 of Patent No. US12314348B2
receiving content from a content-providing device;
receiving user-generated content from a content-providing mobile user device executing a content-sharing application;
storing the content on a memory component in communication with the server;
storing a resource containing the user-generated content on a memory component on the server, wherein the memory component is separate from the content-providing mobile user device;
setting a geographic boundary on access to the content;
the user instructions specify a numerical limit on a number of users allowed to access the user-generated content and a geographical limit on locations from which users are allowed to access the user-generated content,
receiving a plurality of requests to access the content from one or more content- consuming devices;
receiving a plurality of requests to access the user-generated content stored on the server, wherein the plurality of requests originate from one or more content-consuming devices;
identifying respective geographical locations of the one or more content-consuming devices;
identifying geographical locations of the plurality of requests based on respective network addresses associated with the respective requests;
denying at least one of the plurality of requests based on the respective geographical location of the one or more content-consuming devices being outside the geographic boundary;
denying access to the user-generated content responsive to determining that the received request exceeds the access limit on the user-generated content; modifying the access limit …, the geographical location of at least one of the plurality of requests, wherein modifying the access limit comprises ….a determination whether the geographical location of the at least one of the plurality of requests is outside the locations from which the users are allowed to access the user-generated content
expanding the geographic boundary based on the denial of the at least one of the plurality of requests.
….and a determination to expand the geographical limit;
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Step 1 (The Statutory Categories): Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter? MPEP 2106.03
Per Step 1, Claims 1-7 are drawn to a method; claims 8-14 are drawn to a non-transitory computer readable medium; claims 15-20 are drawn to an apparatus, which are all within the four statutory categories (i.e., a process).
Independent claim 1 recites: (claims 8 and 15 being similar in scope):
Claim 1:
receiving content from a content-providing device;
storing the content on a memory component in communication with the server;
setting a geographic boundary on access to the content;
receiving a plurality of requests to access the content from one or more content- consuming devices;
identifying respective geographical locations of the one or more content-consuming devices;
denying at least one of the plurality of requests based on the respective geographical location of the one or more content-consuming devices being outside the geographic boundary; and
expanding the geographic boundary based on the denial of the at least one of the plurality of requests.
Step 2A Prong 1: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? MPEP 2106.04
The limitations, as drafted, constitute a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people by following rules, under the Certain methods of organizing human activity, but for the recitation of generic computer components. The abstract idea, recited above, includes: receiving content from a content-providing device; storing the content on a memory component in communication with the server; setting a geographic boundary on access to the content; receiving a plurality of requests to access the content from one or more content- consuming devices; identifying respective geographical locations of the one or more content-consuming devices; denying at least one of the plurality of requests based on the respective geographical location of the one or more content-consuming devices being outside the geographic boundary; and expanding the geographic boundary based on the denial of the at least one of the plurality of requests. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of limitations commercial interactions, but for the recitation of generic computer components, it falls within the Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity – managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people by following rules, grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong 2: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? MPEP 2106.04.
The recited computing elements (claim 15: content-providing device; content-consuming device; server; processor; etc; claim 18: one or more non-transitory computer-readable medium) are recited at a high-level of generality, i.e. as generic computing element performing generic computer functions such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). Simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more, since it amounts to no more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer, as set forth in MPEP 2106.05(f).
Accordingly, these additional claim elements, alone and in combination do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, because (1) they do not effect improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field (see MPEP 2106.05(a)); (2) they do not apply or use the abstract idea to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or a medical condition (see the Vanda memo); (3) they do not apply the abstract idea with, or by use of, a particular machine (see MPEP 2106.05(b)); (4) they do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (see MPEP 2106.05(c)); (5) they do not apply or use the abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the identified abstract idea to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designated to monopolize the exception (see MPEP 2106.05(e) and the Vanda memo). Therefore, per Step 2A, Prong Two, the claim is directed to an abstract idea not integrated into a practical application.
Step 2B (The Inventive Concept): Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? MPEP 2106.05.
Step 2B of the eligibility analysis concludes that the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Examiner carries over the analysis from Step 2A related to the generic computing elements being no more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer (MPEP 2106.05(f)). The additional claim elements are simply linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use” are mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, are carried over for further analysis in Step 2B.
When the independent claims are considered as a whole, as a combination, the claim elements noted above do not amount to any more than they amount to individually. The operations appear to merely apply the abstract concept to a technical environment in a very general sense, i.e. a microcontroller; a non-volatile flash memory; an electronic device; a digital wallet application; etc The most significant elements of the claims, that is the elements that really outline the inventive elements of the claims, are set forth in the elements identified as an abstract idea. Therefore, it is concluded that the elements of the independent claims are directed to one or more abstract ideas and do not amount to significantly more. (MPEP 2106.05)
Further, Step 2B of the analysis takes into consideration all dependent claims as well, both individually and as a whole, as a combination:
Claims 2-7 are further directed to additional abstract ideas because the steps performed are simply narrowing the scope of the abstract idea of claim 1 since their individual and combined significance is still not significantly more than the abstract concept at the core of the claimed invention. For example, claim 2 describes the request originate from one or more content-consuming devices; claim 3 further describes identifying the respective geographical locations; claim 4 describes defining the geographic boundary; claim 5 also on defining the geographic boundary; claim 6 also on defining the geographic boundary; claim 7 on generating a notification for the boundary expanison, which all of the limitation are narrowing the steps performed in claim 1.
The other dependent claims, claim 9-14 and 16-20, are similar in scope to the claim 1-7, are also rejected for the same reasons provided above.
The most significant elements of the claims, that is the elements that really outline the inventive elements of the claims, are set forth in the elements identified in the independent claims as an abstract idea. The fact that the associated computing devices are facilitating the abstract concept is not enough to confer statutory subject matter eligibility. In sum, the additional elements do not serve to confer subject matter eligibility to the invention since their individual and combined significance is still not heavier than the abstract concepts at the core of the claimed invention. Therefore, it is concluded that the dependent claims of the instant application do not amount to significantly more either. (see MPEP 2106.05)
In sum, claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 USC 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-6, 8-13, and 15-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being obvious over Lavalaye et al. (US20150234868A1) in view of Scipioni et al. (US20180121947A1).
With respect to claim 1, 8, and 15
Lavalaye teaches:
receiving content from a content-providing device ([0015], The method comprises receiving the content in a distribution node from a content provider, said content being associated with a geographical location.);
storing the content on a memory component in communication with the server ([0015], The method further comprises retrieving from the first storage device an indication of a first communication node of the access zone. The method further comprises transmitting the content from the distribution node to the first communication node.);
setting a geographic boundary on access to the content ([0001], The invention relates to a method for creating an access zone for providing content from a content provider to a user device located in the access zone, a method for providing content to an access zone or geographical sector within the access zone, a method for providing the content to the user device in the access zone or the geographical sector within the access zone,);
receiving a plurality of requests to access the content from one or more content-consuming devices (see [0009]);
Lavalaye doesn’t explicitly disclose, but Scipioni teaches:
identifying respective geographical locations of the one or more content-consuming devices (see claim 2, receiving data corresponding to a physical location of a device associated with a user; determining whether the device is located within a proximity of a place having a physical location with geographical borders);
denying at least one of the plurality of requests based on the respective geographical location of the one or more content-consuming devices being outside the geographic boundary (see claim 2, in response to receiving an indication that the user is outside the geographical borders associated with the physical location, restricting the electronic access to the digital content;.); and expanding the geographic boundary based on the denial of the at least one of the plurality of requests (see claim 2, in response to receiving an indication that the user is outside the geographical borders associated with the physical location, restricting the electronic access to the digital content; and sending a second offer to extend the electronic access to the digital content past the geographical borders in return for receiving a payment within a specified amount of time; see claim 11, wherein the restriction of the electronic access to the digital content is lifted based upon receiving an indication that the user has accepted the second offer to extent electronic access to the digital content when the physical location of the device associated with the user is outside the geographical borders of the physical location of the place.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of Lavalaye with the teaching of Scipioni as they relate to providing access to digital content based on locations. One of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the claimed invention was made would have modified the system of providing content to a geographical sector within the access zone in Lavalaye to include a method of restricting the electronic access to the digital content when the user is located at a certain location as taught by Scipioni for the predicated result of improved methods and systems for providing location-specific content to users.
With respect to claim 2 and 16
The combination of Lavalaye and Scipioni teaches the limitations of claim 1 and 15 respectively. Lavalaye further teaches: wherein the plurality of requests originate from one or more content-consuming devices (see [0009])
With respect to claim 3, 10, and 17
The combination of Lavalaye and Scipioni teaches the limitations of claim 1, 8, and 15 respectively. Scipioni further teaches: wherein identifying the respective geographical locations comprises determining at least one of an internet protocol address or global positioning system location of the one or more content-consuming devices ([0027], in yet another embodiment, mobile device 103 is configured to connect to a network at the physical location 102, so that mobile device 103 is assigned an Internet Protocol (IP) address. The IP address may be received and analyzed by an application on mobile device 103 and/or by the content provider 104.)
With respect to claim 4, 11, and 18
The combination of Lavalaye and Scipioni teaches the limitations of claim 1, 8, and 15 respectively. Lavalaye further teaches: wherein the geographic boundary is based on a location of the content-providing device when the content was received ([0058], Inside a predefined access zone, various points of interests (the depicted triangles) may exist, such as a restaurant, a park, a supermarket, a store, a hospital, a building, an event, etc. Content providers associated with those points of interests, e.g., may wish to distribute and/or make location-specific content associated with specific points of interest accessible or available to users nearby. The location-specific content may include emergency announcements, public service announcements, advertisements, news, traffic information, weather information, construction information, air quality information, environmental conditions, and/or any content specific to a location.)
With respect to claim 5 and 12
The combination of Lavalaye and Scipioni teaches the limitations of claim 1 and 8 respectively. Lavalaye further teaches: wherein the geographic boundary is based on a user-specified location ([0068], FIG. 2 shows an exemplary overview of a system architecture 200 wherein a content provider 202 may configure a communication node 216 a, 216 b, 216 c in a specific predefined access zone 214 a, 214 b, 214 c via an interface 204.)
Claims 7, 14, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being obvious over Lavalaye et al. (US20150234868A1) in view of Scipioni et al. (US20180121947A1), and further in view of Allen et al. (US20210014636A1).
With respect to claim 7, 14, and 20
The combination of Lavalaye and Scipioni teaches the limitations of claim 1, 8, and 15 respectively. The combination does not explicitly disclose, but Allen teaches: generating a notification that the geographic boundary has been expanded; and transmitting the notification to the content-providing device ([0095], Another parameter may include setting a boundary or geofence to indicate the area in which users must be located to submit content messages for a media collection or where users must be located to view a media collection. The application 114 may include a predetermined maximum geofence or boundary size. If the user 106 would like to increase the maximum boundary size, the user 106 may need to pay an additional fee to do so, as shown in interface 750 in FIG. 7E. In one example embodiment, the user 106 may set the geofence and expand or decrease the size of the geofence radius via an interface such as the one shown in the interface 760 in FIGS. 7F, 7G, and 7H. For example, the user 106 may resize the area 762 from smaller (e.g., 7F) to larger (e.g., 7G, 7H) and vice versa; see claim 1, receiving, by the first computing device, confirmation that the new media collection was activated for the decreased or increased geographic boundary size for where media content originates.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of Lavalaye/ Scipioni with the teaching of Allen as they relate to providing access to digital content based on locations. One of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the claimed invention was made would have modified the combined systems of Lavalaye/ Scipioni, i.e., providing content to a geographical sector within the access zone in Lavalaye, to include a method of providing notification/confirmation when the boundary has been expanded as taught by Allen for the predicated result of improved methods and systems for providing location-specific content to users.
With respect to claim 19
The combination of Lavalaye and Scipioni teaches the limitations of claim 15. The combination does not explicitly disclose, but Allen teaches: wherein the geographic boundary is based on a user-specified location or a political boundary ([0095], Another parameter may include setting a boundary or geofence to indicate the area in which users must be located to submit content messages for a media collection or where users must be located to view a media collection. The application 114 may include a predetermined maximum geofence or boundary size. If the user 106 would like to increase the maximum boundary size, the user 106 may need to pay an additional fee to do so, as shown in interface 750 in FIG. 7E.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of Lavalaye/ Scipioni with the teaching of Allen as they relate to providing access to digital content based on locations. One of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the claimed invention was made would have modified the combined systems of Lavalaye/ Scipioni, i.e., providing content to a geographical sector within the access zone in Lavalaye, to include a method of setting a user-specified boundary as taught by Allen for the predicated result of improved methods and systems for providing location-specific content to users.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE Non-FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YIN Y CHOI whose telephone number is (571)272-1094 or yin.choi@uspto.gov. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 7:30 - 5:30pm EST.
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 on 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 the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/YIN Y CHOI/Examiner, Art Unit 3699 8/15/2026
/NEHA PATEL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3699
Prosecution Insights