DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-20 are pending. Claims 1-20 are considered in this Office 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 .
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.
Alice – Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 1, 8, and 15 recite the limitations for identifying, a plurality of channel owners, each channel owner associated with a respective channel of a set of channels of the content sharing platform (Collecting and Analyzing the Information, an Observation and Evaluation; a Commercial Interaction, i.e. generating memberships, a Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity), determining, for each respective channel, a first value indicating a first number of projected members subscribing to a respective channel with an enabled set of membership tiers and a second value indicating a second number of projected members subscribing to the respective channel with the enabled set of membership tiers (Analyzing the Information, an Evaluation; a Commercial Interaction, i.e. generating memberships, a Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity), for each respective channel, identifying, based on the respective first value and the respective second value, a set of actions to be performed by the respective channel owner of the plurality of channel owners for enabling the set of membership tiers (Analyzing the Information, an Evaluation; a Commercial Interaction, i.e. generating memberships, a Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity), determining, for each channel owner of the plurality of channel owners, one or more rewards for performing at least a subset of the set of actions (Analyzing the Information, an Evaluation; a Commercial Interaction, i.e. generating memberships, a Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity), generating a recommendation reflecting the one or more rewards and the subset of the actions (Analyzing the Information, an Evaluation; a Commercial Interaction, i.e. generating memberships, a Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity), and providing, for presentation to each of the plurality of channel owners, a respective indicator referencing the recommendation (Transmitting the Information, a Judgment; a Commercial Interaction, i.e. generating memberships, a Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity), which under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind for the purposes of generating memberships, a Commercial Interaction, but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting a processing device of a content sharing program, one or more AI models, system, memory, processing device, and computer readable medium, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed or read into the mind for the purposes of a Commercial Interaction, which is Managing Human Behavior, a Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas, an observation, evaluation, and judgment. Further, as described above, the claims recite limitations for a Commercial Interaction, a “Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity”. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the above stated additional elements to perform the abstract limitations as above. The processing device of a content sharing program, one or more AI models, system, memory, processing device, and computer readable medium are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic software/module performing a generic computer function of storing, retrieving, sending, and processing data) such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Even if taken as an additional element, the receiving and transmitting steps above are at best insignificant extra-solution activity as these are receiving, storing, and transmitting data as per the MPEP 2106.05(d). Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, when considered both individually and as an ordered combination. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element being used to perform the abstract limitations stated above amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible. Applicant’s Specification states:
“ [0029] Client devices 102A-102N can each include computing devices such as personal computers (PCs), laptops, mobile phones, smart phones, tablet computers, netbook computers, network-connected televisions, etc.”
Which shows that these steps can be performed on any generic computing device which can be used to perform the abstract limitations, such as a laptop, phone, desktop, etc., and from this interpretation, one would reasonably deduce the aforementioned steps are all functions that can be done on generic components, and thus application of an abstract idea on a generic computer, as per the Alice decision and not requiring further analysis under Berkheimer, but for edification the Applicant’s specification has been used as above satisfying any such requirement. This is “Applying It” by utilizing current technologies. For the receiving and transmitting steps that were considered extra-solution activity in Step 2A above, if they were to be considered additional elements, they have been re-evaluated in Step 2B and determined to be well-understood, routine, conventional, activity in the field. The background does not provide any indication that the additional elements, such as the processing device, system, memory, etc., nor the receiving and transmitting steps as above, are anything other than a generic, and the MPEP Section 2106.05(d) indicates that mere collection or receipt, storing, or transmission of data is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here). For these reasons, there is no inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claims 2-7, 9-14, and 16-20 contain the identified abstract ideas, further narrowing them, with the additional elements of a first and second AI model which are highly generalized when considered as part of a practical application or under prong 2 of the Alice analysis of the MPEP, thus not integrated into a practical application, nor are they significantly more for the same reasons and rationale as above.
After considering all claim elements, both individually and in combination, Examiner has determined that the claims are directed to the above abstract ideas and do not amount to significantly more. Therefore, the claims and dependent claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter. See Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, No. 13–298.
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, 3-8, 10-15, and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abendoth (U.S. Publication No. 2025/038,4459) in view of Bhalla (U.S. Publication No. 2013/005,4306).
Regarding Claims 1, 8, and 15, Abendoth, a system and method with multi-tier club memberships for optimized discounted buying on the internet and at store locations, teaches a method comprising:
identifying, by a processing device of a content sharing platform ([0117] a platform which utilizes the system), a plurality of channel owners, each channel owner associated with a respective channel of a set of channels of the content sharing platform ([0029] channels with channel owners on the platform above)
for each respective channel, identifying, based on the respective first value and the respective second value, a set of actions to be performed by the respective channel owner of the plurality of channel owners for enabling the set of membership tiers ([0213] a set of actions is identified for members based on the values and rewards such as in [0193-194];
determining, for each channel owner of the plurality of channel owners, one or more rewards for performing at least a subset of the set of actions ([0162] a level of membership and in [0167] a reward is determined based on action by a channel owner);
generating a recommendation reflecting the one or more rewards and the subset of the actions ([0167] a reward is generated based on the membership tier); and
providing, for presentation to each of the plurality of channel owners, a respective indicator referencing the recommendation ([0200] a recommendation is made to owners of channels in discussion groups which is an indicator)
Although Abendoth teaches a platform with channels and owners of channels, and a system to process this information as above, and determining, for each respective channel using one or more artificial intelligence (AI) models, a first value indicating a first number of projected members subscribing to a respective channel with an enabled set of membership tiers and a second value indicating a second number of projected members subscribing to the respective channel with the enabled set of membership tiers ([0222-234] artificial intelligence models are used to determine information, it does not explicitly state the system uses a processor and medium, nor does it teach a second value indicating projected or future members.
Bhalla, a churn analysis system and method, teaches a system with a processor, memory and medium as in [0103], and teaches the prediction of future subscribers based on values as in [0068]
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the system for determining rewards for members and owners of a channel of Abendoth with the prediction of subscribers of channels of Bhalla as they are both analogous art along with the claimed invention which teach solutions to memberships in various channels, and the combination would lead to an improved system which would increase the customer/owner’s decision speed and allow for retention of more subscribers as taught in [0004] of Bhalla.
Examiner notes Abendoth teaches a system with memory as in Claim2 and REB teaches
Regarding Claims 3, 10, and 17, Abendoth teaches wherein input to the one or more AI models reflects at least one of: viewer interactions with at least one of the respective channel or a media item on the respective channel, activities performed by the respective channel owner on at least one of the respective channel or on a media item on the respective channel, or metrics associated with at least one of the respective channel or a media item on the respective channel ([0108] number of views along with clicks of video are used with the model of [0222-224])
Regarding Claims 4, 11, and 18, Although Abendoth teaches an indicator as in Claim 1, it does not explicitly state this is a pop-up message, email, or text.
Bhalla teaches wherein the indicator is at least one of a pop-up message on a user interface associated with the channel, an email message, or a text message ([0086] email message is sent as well as text/instant messages)
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the system for determining rewards for members and owners of a channel of Abendoth with the prediction of subscribers of channels of Bhalla as they are both analogous art along with the claimed invention which teach solutions to memberships in various channels, and the combination would lead to an improved system which would increase the customer/owner’s decision speed and allow for retention of more subscribers as taught in [0004] of Bhalla.
Regarding Claims 5, 12, and 19, Abendoth teaches further comprising:
determining, based on at least one of the first value or the second value, a projected revenue of the content sharing platform derived from a number of members projected to subscribe to the content offered by one of the respective channels, wherein the determined one or more rewards are based on the projected revenue ([0144-147] projected revenue from new membership fees are then used to come up with rewards)
Regarding Claims 6, 13, and 20, Abendoth teaches wherein the one or more respective actions includes at least one of enabling the content, subscribing a new member to the content, or obtaining a certain number of new members to the content by a certain date ([0146-147] subscribing a new member and number of views as in [0108])
Regarding Claims 7 and 14, Abendoth teaches wherein the first number of projected members is determined by a first AI model of the one or more AI models and the second number of projected members is determined by a second AI model of the one or more AI models ([0222-234] multiple AI models are used and generated with the number of members)
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2, 9, and 16 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if the independent claim was amended in such a way as to overcome the 35 USC 101 rejection.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 20260129252 A1
Leung; Alvin et al.
INTEGRATION OF PLATFORMS FOR MULTI-PLATFORM CONTENT ACCESS
US 20250384459 A1
Abendroth; John C. et al.
Method and System with Multi-Tier Club Memberships for Optimized Discounted Buying on the Internet and at Store Locations
US 20130054306 A1
Bhalla; Anuj et al.
CHURN ANALYSIS SYSTEM
US 20250350801 A1
Seiderman; Briana Yvonne et al.
IDENTIFYING CHANNEL FEATURE RECOMMENDATIONS FOR A CHANNEL MEMBERSHIP ON A CONTENT PLATFORM
US 20230209116 A1
Leung; Alvin et al.
INTEGRATION OF PLATFORMS FOR MULTI-PLATFORM CONTENT ACCESS
US 20230131942 A1
THOMAS; William L. et al.
SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR MANAGING, DISCOVERING AND SHARING STREAMING VIDEO SERVICES
US 20220335513 A1
Thompson; Matthew Lance et al.
HOSPITALITY CONNECTION PLATFORM
US 20150161632 A1
Humay; Anthony W.
INTELLIGENT SOCIAL POLLING PLATFORM
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSEPH M WAESCO whose telephone number is (571)272-9913. The examiner can normally be reached on 8 AM - 5 PM M-F.
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, BETH BOSWELL can be reached on (571) 272-6737. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-1348.
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.
/JOSEPH M WAESCO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3625B 7/16/2026
Prosecution Insights