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 .
Status of Claims
The office action is being examined in response to the application filed by the Applicant on October 7, 2025.
Claims 1-15 are pending and have been examined.
This action is made NON-FINAL.
The Examiner would like to note that this application is now being handled by examiner Ivonnemary Rivera González.
Foreign Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. KR210-2024-0137649, filed on October, 10, 2024.
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on October 7, 2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 § 2146 et seq. 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 filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual 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/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
At least the instant independent claims 1, 6 and 13 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 7 of U.S. App No. 19/351,562 (referred herein as app 562’). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they are not patentably distinct from each other because the differences between the claims are considered to be anticipated as set forth below:
Instant claims
Co-pending or reference claims
(US App No. 19/351,562)
Claims 1 and 8: A system for providing filtering information for a copyrighted work registration application, comprising: (claim 1)
executing, by a contract management server, an electronic contract related to use of first copyrighted works between first copyright holders of the first copyrighted works and second copyright holders of second copyrighted works created using the first copyrighted works; and
providing, by a copyrighted work supply server, an online supply service for the second copyrighted works in response to a supply registration application for online supply of the second copyrighted works, and generating supply filtering information indicating whether the supply registration application complies with the electronic contract concluded with the first copyright holders.
Claims 1 and 7: A system for providing monitoring information on use of copyrighted works for copyright holders, comprising: (claim 1)
a contract management server configured to execute an electronic contract related to use of first copyrighted works between first copyright holders of the first copyrighted works and second copyright holders of second copyrighted works created using the first copyrighted works; and
a copyrighted work supply server configured to provide an online supply service for the first copyrighted works or the second copyrighted works, generate use status information of the second copyrighted works, indicating a use status of each of at least one second copyrighted works created using the first copyrighted works, and provide the use status information to the contract management server upon a request from the contract management server,
wherein the contract management server comprises:
a contract management database configured to store contract condition information comprising a supply channel item related to a supply channel for the second copyrighted works, a moral rights permission item related to the first copyrighted works in connection with the second copyrighted works, a reuse permission item indicating whether creation of third copyrighted works using the second copyrighted works is permitted, and a fee item related to a method for calculating fees incurred from the supply of the second copyrighted works;
a contract conclusion unit configured to execute the electronic contract between the first copyright holders and the second copyright holders using the contract condition information and generate contract conclusion information according to the electronic contract; and
a monitoring information generation unit configured to compare the use status information received from the copyrighted work supply server with supply channel information, moral rights permission information, reuse permission information, and fee information included in the contract conclusion information; generate, based on a result of the comparison, contract monitoring information indicating whether the second copyrighted works are being used in compliance with the electronic contract; and transmit the contract monitoring information to a user terminal.
Consequently, for instant claims 1 and 8 are covered by app 562’ and its claims 1 and 7. Thus, these instant claims are anticipated by the app reference’s claims 1 and 7 because both applicant’s pending application and the reference app cover every feature claim in which the instant claims are broadly recited and encompass the same disclosed technology. Moreover, both the instant claims and the reference claims share similar invention titles which are directed to a system and method for providing filtering information on a registration application so that, during the process of registering a second copyrighted work on a supply platform, it is possible to determine whether a second copyrighted work created using a first copyrighted work is being properly used in compliance with a usage contract with a copyright holder of a first copyrighted work (see ¶0005 from instant disclosure and ¶0005 from instant and reference specs). Thus, under the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), this invention scope in the instant claims 1 and 8 are covered by the independent reference claims 1 and 8 from app 562’ (see MPEP 804 (II)(B)(2) for more details). Finally, this is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
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 use the word “means” or “configured to” but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Specifically, claims 2 – 4 and 7 and its respective limitation(s) recite(s) the generic placeholder(s) of (at Prong one): a contract information extraction unit (from claim 2); a contract conclusion unit (from claims 2 – 3); a list information extraction unit, a user terminal, a filtering information generation unit (from claim 4) and a copyrighted work interface unit (from claim 7). This claim limitations are reciting the term “configured to”, but because there is an absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in the claims, this 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. Such rebuttal of this presumption occurs when the claim limitations recite function(s) without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited functions, which is not the case. Thus, there is no “means plus function” or recitation of modified functional language in the claims at Prong two. At Prong three, these units are reciting sufficient structure, material or acts as they are interpreted under the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) as being software executing their respective functions with the hardware structure of the claimed servers that are part of. The Examiner notes that the units and their respective servers are described in the specification in ¶0043 and ¶0074 as well as in Figs. 1 – 2 and 5.
Because these claim limitation(s) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant intends 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 remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
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 - 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The analysis of this claimed invention recited in the claims begins in view of independent claim 1, the most representative claim of the independent claims set 1 and 8, as follows:
At Step 1: Claims 1 - 7 falls under statutory category of a machine, while claims 8 - 15 are directed to a process.
At Step 2A Prong 1: Claim 1 (representative of claim 8) recites an abstract idea in the following limitations:
executing…an electronic contract related to use of first copyrighted works between first copyright holders of the first copyrighted works and second copyright holders of second copyrighted works created using the first copyrighted works; and
providing…an online supply service for the second copyrighted works in response to a supply registration application for online supply of the second copyrighted works, and generating supply filtering information indicating whether the supply registration application complies with the electronic contract concluded with the first copyright holders.
Generally, and as disclosed in the specification in ¶0005, this claimed invention “provides a system and method for providing filtering information on a registration application so that, during the process of registering a second copyrighted work on a supply platform, it is possible to determine whether a second copyrighted work created using a first copyrighted work is being properly used in compliance with a usage contract with a copyright holder of a first copyrighted work.” However, the abstract idea(s) of a certain method of organizing human activity (See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsection II) are/is recited in claim 1 in the form of “commercial or legal interactions”. Specifically, the abstract idea is recited in the steps of “executing…an electronic contract related to use of first copyrighted works between first copyright holders of the first copyrighted works and second copyright holders of second copyrighted works created using the first copyrighted works” and “providing…an online supply service for the second copyrighted works in response to a supply registration application for online supply of the second copyrighted works, and generating supply filtering information indicating whether the supply registration application complies with the electronic contract…”. Because at least executing electronic contracts for permitting the usage copyright works and providing “online supply service” (i.e. offering content distribution services through a particular platform such as “YouTube, Spotify, and Netflix.”; see ¶0038 from Applicant disclosure) at least encompasses legal interactions related to agreements in the form of contracts and/or legal obligations.
These same claim steps mentioned above fall under the abstract idea of mental processes that can be practically be performed in the human mind or in pen and paper (See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III). Because executing electronic contracts for permitting the usage copyright works and generating information that indicate that a supply registration application complies with an electronic contract encompass evaluation, judgement and opinion. Also, these steps can either be done with the help of physical aid such as pen and paper or can be performed by humans without or with the assistance (e.g. tool) a computer. Thus, the steps do not negate and further still reads in the mental nature of the limitation(s), when creating and checking such compliance from contract information, as well as the concept is merely claimed to be performed on a generic computer and is merely using a computer as a tool to perform the concept of determining whether a second copyrighted work created using a first copyrighted work is being properly used in compliance with a usage contract of the first copyrighted work. (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(B & C)).
At Step 2A Prong 2: For independent claims 1 and 8, The judicial exception(s) or abstract idea previously identified is not integrated into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.04 (d)). The claims recite the additional element(s) of a contract management server and a copyrighted work supply server. These additional elements, individually and in combination, and while considering the claims as a whole, are merely used as a tool to perform the abstract idea (See MPEP 2106.05(f)). Specifically, these claim limitations are recited as being performed by the computer. The computer is recited at a high level of generality that is being used as a tool to perform the generic computer functions for executing the electronic contract, provide the online supply service after being registered and generate supply filtering information indicating the supply registration application complies with the electronic contract or not. Thus, these steps mentioned above are further describing and applying the abstract idea without placing any limits on how the technological components are being improved, while distinguishing in the claim language, the performing limitations from functions that generic computer components can perform.
Step 2B: For independent claims 1 and 8, these claims do not provide an inventive concept. The recited additional elements of the claim(s) are the following: a contract management server and a copyrighted work supply server. These additional elements are not sufficient to amount significantly more than the judicial exception or abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05). Because, as indicated in Step 2A Prong 2, these additional element(s) claimed are merely, instructions to “apply” the abstract ideas, which cannot provide an inventive concept. Thus, even when considered in combination, these additional elements represent mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer, which do not provide an inventive concept at Step 2B.
For dependent claims 2-7 and 9-15, the same analysis is incorporated. Due to their dependency to the independent claims analyzed, these claims cover or fall under the same abstract idea(s) of a method of organizing human activity and mental processes. They describe additional limitations steps of:
Claims 2-7 and 9-15: further describes the abstract idea of the method for providing filtering information for a copyrighted work registration application and merely recites further embellishments of the abstract idea and do not claim anything that amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Thus, being directed to the abstract idea group of ““commercial or legal interactions” and mental processes as they encompass legal interactions related to agreements in the form of contracts and/or legal obligations as well as evaluation, judgement and opinion when creating and verifying such copyright contracts for compliance.
Step 2A Prong 2 and Step 2B: For dependent claims 2 – 4 and 7, these claims recite the additional elements of: a contract management database, a contract information extraction unit (from claim 2); a contract conclusion unit (from claims 2 – 3); a copyrighted work database, a list information extraction unit, a user terminal, a filtering information generation unit (from claim 4); a copyrighted work interface unit (from claim 7). These additional elements recited are invoking computers merely used as a tool to perform or “apply” the abstract idea(s) to the existing process of storing, executing, generating, extracting, requesting, comparing, transmitting and displaying information related to copyright works and their corresponding electronic contracts as well as setting different permissions for the respective electronic contract. Thus, amounting to no more than mere instructions to “apply” the exception using a generic computer component (MPEP 2106.05(f) and (f)(2)). Accordingly, for the same reasons stated above, these additional element(s) claimed cannot provide an inventive concept at Step 2B.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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, 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.
Claims 1 - 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen (U.S. Pub No. 20180349572 A1) in view of Brock (U.S. Pub No. 20080059536 A1).
Regarding claims 1 and 8:
This independent claim set is represented by claim 8
Chen teaches:
executing, by a contract management server, an electronic contract related to use of first copyrighted works between first copyright holders of the first copyrighted works and second copyright holders of second copyrighted works created using the first copyrighted works; and (In ¶0107 – 108; Fig. 2 (S201): teaches that “the author of the derivative work may first perform copyright registration for the derivative work. In this case, the block chain may be a block chain that stores both a valid contract transaction and a copyright registration transaction, and the copyright authorization management apparatus is corresponding to a block chain apparatus”, in accordance to examples for executing the electronic contract given in ¶0049 and ¶0053 from Applicant disclosure. Further, “copyright application client provides a screen to help the user enter copyright registration information” including “information about the derivative work, for example, a work's name and a version, and further includes a copyright notice, that is, a copyright statement for the derivative work.” Then, “after obtaining the copyright registration information entered by the user, the copyright application client generates a copyright registration request based on the copyright registration information, where the copyright registration request is generated according to a protocol that is specified between the copyright application client and the copyright authorization management apparatus in advance.” Refer to ¶0123 for more details of S201.)
Chen teaches that the system goes through “check process” steps such as “(a4) Query Whether Derivation on a Cited Work is Disallowed” based on querying the blockchain and copyright clauses (see ¶0110 – 111; Chen) and “(a5) Query Whether Derivation is to be Performed on a Cited Work According to a Preset Clause” that once the copyright clauses of the cited work are obtained, the system uses them to “determine whether derivation on the cited work is disallowed” (see ¶0118 – 119; Chen). However, Chen does not explicitly teach the abilities of providing an online supply service for second copyrighted works in response to a supply registration application and generate supply filtering information indicating whether online supply of the second copyrighted works complies with the electronic contract of the first work. However, Brock further teaches:
providing, by a copyrighted work supply server, an online supply service for the second copyrighted works in response to a supply registration application for online supply of the second copyrighted works, (In ¶0086; Fig. 2B (232): teaches the provision of an online supply service for second copyrighted works after being registered or before being published (i.e. directed to in response to a supply registration application), in an example wherein and “online service provider” or “OSP such as youtube.com may check each video before it is made available for viewing on youtube.com. In some embodiments, monitoring comprises periodically checking content objects served by the OSP. For example, a new video is made available for viewing immediately after being posted, but the video may later be removed by a monitoring process that checks new content objects. If the video is determined to be non-compliant, it is removed and the video owner is optionally notified. The results of the check are stored in a database so that the video does not need to be checked again unless it is modified”, in accordance to examples for online supply services (i.e. services from content distribution platforms) given in ¶0038 from Applicant disclosure. Further in ¶0087, “if information obtained from the database is not enough to determine whether the content is compliant, an evaluation is performed, where the evaluation can include techniques described at 212. The evaluation may also include techniques used to detect objects or characteristics of objects in an image, such as faces, body parts, the age of a person being depicted, etc. Such techniques may be useful to detect pornography or child pornography, for example. The evaluation results may then be stored in the database.” See ¶0104 wherein “a content object is received. For example, a user is posting a new content object to an OSP site, and the OSP is receiving the content object for the first time” to then generate a “fingerprint” based on “feature(s)” extracted or “other analysis performed, as described at 206” to determine “whether the content object is non-compliant according to the database” before approving the posting of the content.)
and generating supply filtering information indicating whether the supply registration application complies with the electronic contract concluded with the first copyright holders. (In ¶0126; Fig. 2D (264 and 268); Figs. 5 – 6: teaches wherein in “the case of a content host monitoring for use of non-compliant content based on the host policy, an interface similar to interface 500 may be used to display resulting matches, in accordance to an example of the online supply service example given in ¶0084 from Applicant disclosure. For example, cell 502 may display a match with copyrighted content. Cell 504 may display a match with content associated with child pornography. For example, in place of text1 may be a known image that has been positively identified (either manually or automatically) as child pornography, and in place of text2 may be a new image that is being posted by a user to the content host. In this case, the known image in place of text1 may have been in a database of known non-compliant content, and the match determined as described at 264. In some cases, the new image is determined to be a match with child pornography based on an evaluation (e.g., 268) rather than a match with a content object in a database of known pornography. In this case, in place of text1, there may be no image displayed, or data related to the evaluation may be displayed instead”. Finally, in ¶0127 – 130 another GUI for “displaying use of a content object” with “use of the controlled content are marked, i.e., boxed (e.g., a graphical box around the image or text that is being used)” and visual indicators to indicate copyright compliance along with “applicable usage rule(s) specified by the content owner may be displayed”.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Chen to provide the abilities of providing an online supply service for second copyrighted works in response to a supply registration application and generate supply filtering information indicating whether online supply of the second copyrighted works complies with the electronic contract of the first work, as taught by Brock in order to monitor “content and managing enforcement of non-compliant content” (¶0004; Brock), see also MPEP 2143.I.G. Further such ability provided by Brock into Chen system would have been obvious because the claimed invention is merely applying a known technique to a known method ready for improvement to yield predictable results. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 406 (2007). In other words, all of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention (i.e., predictable results are obtained by applying the known technique of monitoring and extraction of contract information using servers wherein the information is stored and retrieved upon request to compare copyrighted work matching information and generate supply filtering information for compliance indications to the known method and system for permitting the usage copyright works and providing “online supply service” (i.e. offering content distribution services through a particular platform such as “YouTube, Spotify, and Netflix)). See also MPEP § 2143(I)(D).
Regarding claims 2 and 9:
The combination of Chen and Brock, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claims 1 and 8, respectively.
Chen further teaches:
a contract management database configured to store contract condition information… (In ¶0155; Fig. 9 (S905 – S906): teaches that “the contract file and the valid contract file are stored in the copyright authorization management apparatus or stored by the copyright authorization management apparatus in another file database”.)
a contract conclusion unit configured to execute the electronic contract between the first copyright holders and the second copyright holders using the contract condition information, and to generate contract conclusion information according to the electronic contract; and (In ¶0133; Fig. 2 (S203): teaches such contract execution using contract conditions to generate contract conclusion information when “after the copyright authorization management apparatus receives the transaction information and before the copyright authorization management apparatus generates the contract transaction based on the transaction information, a step of requesting the copyright applicant to confirm a contract may be further included” wherein “after viewing the contract, if the copyright applicant agrees on the contract, the copyright applicant enters contract confirmation information on a screen of the copyright application client” and the “the copyright application client generates a contract confirmation message based on the contract confirmation information, and sends the contract confirmation message to the copyright authorization management apparatus”. Then, “After receiving the contract confirmation message, the copyright authorization management apparatus generates the contract transaction based on the transaction information”, in accordance to definition and examples of the contract conclusion information given in ¶0048 and ¶0055 – 57 from Applicant disclosure.)
a contract information extraction unit configured to extract contract conclusion information corresponding to the first copyrighted works serving as the basis for the creation of the second copyrighted works requested from the copyrighted work supply server… (In ¶0124 – 126; Fig. 5A – 5B: teaches that the contract information extraction unit directed to the “copyright authorization management apparatus” “communicates” with a “third-party IM (Instant Messaging, instant messaging) system” (directed to the copyrighted work supply server) via API calls (i.e. “copyright authorization management apparatus calls an interface of the third-party IM system”) to send and store “discussion group-related data and communication data” that involves the determination of “a copyright contract” (i.e. directed to extracting contract conclusion information to provide it) by “a copyright applicant and an owner of copyright through discussion” and the system further determines “a corresponding owner-of-copyright client and a corresponding copyright application client based on owner-of-copyright information and copyright applicant information”.)
Chen teaches contract condition information as the “contract information” from a “contract template” a copyright owner selected that is later signed as a “contract file” (see ¶0100 and ¶0129; Chen) and the “contract information” further includes “information specified by the owner of copyright, such as a contract signature validity period and a signature type (a signature manner used), and may further include a self-defined signature quantity rule” (see ¶0132 and ¶0140; Chen). Also, Chen teaches that the contract information extraction unit directed to the “copyright authorization management apparatus” “communicates” with third-party systems (i.e. directed to the copyrighted work supply server) such as “a third-party electronic contract signature cloud system may be used for contract determining” (see ¶0130; Chen) as well as a “third-party IM (Instant Messaging, instant messaging) system” via API calls (i.e. “copyright authorization management apparatus calls an interface of the third-party IM system”) to send and store “discussion group-related data and communication data” (see ¶0124 – 126; Chen). However, Chen does not explicitly teach the abilities of disclosing more details of the contract condition information such as the items related to supply channel, a moral rights permission, a reuse permission and fee or fees incurred and providing the extracted contract conclusion information to the copyrighted work supply server. Thus, Brock teaches:
…comprising a supply channel item related to supply of the second copyrighted works, a moral rights permission item related to the first copyrighted works in connection with the second copyrighted works, a reuse permission item regarding whether creation of third copyrighted works using the second copyrighted works is permitted, and a fee item related to a method for calculating fees incurred from the supply of the second copyrighted works; (In ¶0044 – 45; Fig. 1 (202 – 203): teaches this non-functional descriptive matter that does not hold patentable weight as “controlled content is specified” at step 202, wherein “Controlled content may include text, images, video, or any other type of data. Controlled content may be specified in various ways, such as content located in a particular directory and/or all content contributed by a particular user (e.g., on eBay). A user (e.g., a content owner or an administrator) may specify controlled content using any appropriate interface”. Then at step 203 such as “usage rules are specified” which include “conditions under which a content owner permits the use of owned content” such as “different conditions depending on whether the use is for commercial or non-commercial uses, business or education uses, with or without attribution, in a limited amount, in a limited context, etc. The usage rules may be based on any appropriate compliance structure, such as “fair use,” “copy left,” “share alike,” Creative Commons specified structures, user specific compliance rules, rules against associating the controlled content with objectionable content (e.g., obscenity, adult content, child pornography), rules requiring attribution, moral rights, rights of personality, or any legal or personal compliance structure” which is directed to the contract condition information items claimed.)
…and to provide the extracted contract conclusion information to the copyrighted work supply server. (In ¶0029 – 30; Fig. 1 (104): teaches the copyrighted work supply server requesting contract conclusion information to then receive it from the contract information extraction unit as the system’s “Content ingestor 104 accepts controlled content from user 102” (see ¶0028), however, “the ingesting of content” can be “automatically triggered by content creation” (see ¶0029) and the “controlled content may be from the Internet or from another source” and “other data may be provided as input to content monitoring system 100, such as links (e.g., URLs or websites) identified by an administrator, content host, or content owner. These sites may have been identified because the user is aware of a specific instance of non-compliance at that location, they have historically posted non-compliant content or are of particular concern to the user. Other examples of additional data that may be input to content monitoring system 100” may be provided (see ¶0032) which is directed to the system’s contract information extraction unit specifically providing the contract conclusion information upon request (i.e. automatic trigger). Further, “a manual or automated API may be used to ingest content or perform any of the other processes described herein” (see ¶0031).)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Chen to provide the abilities of disclosing more details of the contract condition information such as the items related to supply channel, a moral rights permission, a reuse permission and fee or fees incurred and providing the extracted contract conclusion information to the copyrighted work supply server, as taught by Brock in order to monitor “content and managing enforcement of non-compliant content” (¶0004; Brock), see also MPEP 2143.I.G. Further such ability provided by Brock into Chen system would have been obvious because the claimed invention is merely applying a known technique to a known method ready for improvement to yield predictable results. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 406 (2007). In other words, all of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention (i.e., predictable results are obtained by applying the known technique of monitoring and extraction of contract information and its corresponding conditions using servers wherein the information is stored and retrieved upon request to the known method and system for permitting the usage copyright works and providing “online supply service” (i.e. offering content distribution services through a particular platform such as YouTube, Spotify, and Netflix)). See also MPEP § 2143(I)(D).
Regarding claims 3 and 10:
The combination of Chen and Brock, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claims 2 and 9, respectively.
Chen further teaches:
and then to set a fee item, thereby generating the contract conclusion information comprising contractual supply channel information, contractual moral rights permission information, contractual reuse permission information, and contractual fee information according to the electronic contract. (In ¶0129: teaches at least setting fee item and generating contractual fee information along with other contract conclusion items in accordance to the electronic contract when “after receiving the contract determining notification, the owner of copyright may select a contract template preconfigured in the owner-of-copyright client, and complete filling and setting of related parameters (such as expenses, a disclosure manner, and a publication scope), to make an authorization contract; or may write a contract in a contract format recognizable by the owner-of-copyright client.”)
Chen does not explicitly teach the ability of setting specific contract conclusion information such as the items related to supply channel, a moral rights permission, a reuse permission and fee or fees incurred. Thus, Brock further teaches:
wherein the contract conclusion unit is further configured, after setting the supply channel item, (In ¶0028; Fig. 4A: teaches setting supply channel item in an example wherein the “user 102 is a photographer selling his photography. Using the UI, user 102 specifies a URL to the eBay store or particular auction. In some embodiments, instead of providing a URL to a particular auction, the content owner provides their username (such as an eBay seller ID), which allows the system to retrieve all of the user-posted content associated with that username, which could be associated with one or more auctions”. See ¶0031 wherein “URL or any other appropriate identifier may be used to specify content. Credentials associated with accessing the content, such as a password, may be provided.”)
to set a moral rights permission item corresponding to the supply channel item, to set a reuse permission item corresponding to the moral rights permission item, (In ¶0045 – 46; Fig. 2 (203); Fig. 4B: teaches an example wherein at step 203, includes specifying “usage rules” that “may be based on any appropriate compliance structure, such as “fair use,” “copy left,” “share alike,” Creative Commons specified structures, user specific compliance rules, rules against associating the controlled content with objectionable content (e.g., obscenity, adult content, child pornography), rules requiring attribution, moral rights, rights of personality, or any legal or personal compliance structure”. Further, a “variety of user interfaces may be used to specify usage rules. For example, a list of terms, checkboxes (to apply a rule), and settings (specific to a rule) may be provided. The list may include, for example: whether attribution is required, amount of duplication allowed, whether commercial use is allowed, whether changes are allowed, whether permission is required, whether derivative content is allowed, geographical requirements, whether the owner requires advertisement revenue sharing (e.g., using Google AdSense) and associated terms and information, etc. The usage rules may be hierarchical. For example, a list of higher level rules or compliance structures may be displayed for selection, each of which may be expanded to display lower level rules that each of the high level rules comprises. Usage rules may have any number of levels. Checkboxes (or another appropriate object) may be located next to the higher level or lower level rules and may be selected (e.g., checked off) at any level of granularity. For example, selecting checkboxes next to a higher level rule automatically selects all corresponding lower level rules. Alternatively, lower level rules may be individually selected. An example of a higher level rule is a particular type of license. Lower level rules under the license include the specific usage rules associated with the license.” Finally, in ¶0047, “Usage rules may be customized for each content owner (and for each content object). In some embodiments, a unique URL is provided to the content owner for his use (e.g., to include as a link associated with an icon placed in proximity to his content on his website, in his eBay store, etc.) When a content user wishes to use content on the content owner's website, the content user can then select the link, which leads to a page describing the content owner's usage rules (for that content object).” Refer to ¶0111 – 120 for more Figs. 4A – 4B details.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Chen to provide the ability of setting specific contract conclusion information such as the items related to supply channel, a moral rights permission, a reuse permission and fee or fees incurred, as taught by Brock in order to monitor “content and managing enforcement of non-compliant content” (¶0004; Brock), see also MPEP 2143.I.G. Further such ability provided by Brock into Chen system would have been obvious because the claimed invention is merely applying a known technique to a known method ready for improvement to yield predictable results. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 406 (2007). In other words, all of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention (i.e., predictable results are obtained by applying the known technique of monitoring and extraction of contract information using servers wherein the information is set with specific contract conclusion information items to the known method and system for permitting the usage copyright works and providing “online supply service” (i.e. offering content distribution services through a particular platform such as “YouTube, Spotify, and Netflix)). See also MPEP § 2143(I)(D).
Regarding claims 4 and 11:
Chen, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claims 1 and 8, respectively.
Chen teaches that the contract information extraction unit directed to the “copyright authorization management apparatus” “communicates” with third-party systems (i.e. directed to the copyrighted work supply server) such as “a third-party electronic contract signature cloud system may be used for contract determining” (see ¶0130; Chen) as well as a “third-party IM (Instant Messaging, instant messaging) system” via API calls (i.e. “copyright authorization management apparatus calls an interface of the third-party IM system”) to send and store “discussion group-related data and communication data” (see ¶0124 – 126; Chen). Chen does not explicitly teach the abilities of having a copyrighted work database from the copyrighted work supply server (see ¶0074 from Applicant disclosure) to store copyrighted work matching information and registration application specification information as well as having deriving units of: a list information extraction unit that extracts first copyrighted work list information as the basis for the creation of the second copyrighted works from the copyrighted work matching information and a filtering information generation unit to request contract conclusion information, compare the contract conclusion information transmitted and generate supply filtering information indicating whether online supply of the second copyrighted works is permitted. However, Brock further teaches:
a copyrighted work database configured to store copyrighted work matching information and registration application specification information for the second copyrighted works created using the first copyrighted works; (In ¶0039; Fig. 1 (106, 108 and 116): teaches a “Content database 108 contains references to controlled content and to matched content corresponding to the controlled content. In some embodiments, a separate database is used for matched content.” Further, in ¶0041, “controlled content, web data, subscriber data, and/or content data may be organized and stored in one or more databases”. See ¶0049 also wherein “the usage rules for content owners may be stored in controlled content store 116 (e.g., as metadata associated with the content object) or in subscriber database 106.”)
a list information extraction unit configured to, in response to a supply registration application for online supply of the second copyrighted works from a user terminal of each of the second copyright holders, extract first copyrighted work list information for the first copyrighted works serving as the basis for the creation of the second copyrighted works from the copyrighted work matching information; and (In ¶0107 – 108; Fig. 2F: teaches an example wherein a “receiving system (e.g., a server that stores or has access to the compliance information) receives the request for “rules.attributor.com” at 296 and determines the appropriate compliance information at 298. In some embodiments, the compliance information is determined by looking up the web page from which the link was selected (e.g., the content owner's web page) in a table (or other appropriate structure) of compliance information”. Further, “the server retrieves the content on web page “www.example.com” and looks up associated compliance information based on the retrieved content information. For example, each content object may have a content object ID or fingerprint that may be used to identify it and look up usage rules associated with it. In some embodiments, both the URL “www.example.com” and information associated with the content object (such as a content object ID) are used to obtain the compliance information.” Then, at “299, a web page with the compliance information is returned. At 294, the web page with the compliance information is viewed. For example, the potential content user views the compliance information and can decide whether to use the content.”)
a filtering information generation unit configured to request contract conclusion information corresponding to each of the first copyrighted works in the first copyrighted work list information from the contract management server, (In ¶0121 – 122; Fig. 2A (214); Fig. 5: teaches the extraction of first copyrighted work list information from the copyrighted work matching information in Fig. 5 wherein “GUI 500 is used to report search results at 214, e.g., to a content owner. In some embodiments, reporter 110 in FIG. 1 reports results using GUI 500” and the “search results are shown in a grid based layout. In each grid cell, a controlled content object and a match content object are shown, where it has been determined that the match content object is similar to the controlled content object based on a similarity score and a non-compliance score”.)
compare the contract conclusion information transmitted from the contract management server with the registration application specification information, (In ¶0126; Fig. 2D (264 and 268); Figs. 5 – 6: teaches wherein in “the case of a content host monitoring for use of non-compliant content based on the host policy, an interface similar to interface 500 may be used to display resulting matches. For example, cell 502 may display a match with copyrighted content. Cell 504 may display a match with content associated with child pornography. For example, in place of text1 may be a known image that has been positively identified (either manually or automatically) as child pornography, and in place of text2 may be a new image that is being posted by a user to the content host. In this case, the known image in place of text1 may have been in a database of known non-compliant content, and the match determined as described at 264. In some cases, the new image is determined to be a match with child pornography based on an evaluation (e.g., 268) rather than a match with a content object in a database of known pornography. In this case, in place of text1, there may be no image displayed, or data related to the evaluation may be displayed instead”.)
and generate, based on a result of the comparison, supply filtering information indicating whether online supply of the second copyrighted works is permitted. (In ¶0127 – 128; Fig. 6: teaches wherein in “an example of a GUI for displaying use of a content object”. Further, “the portions of the web page that include use of the controlled content are marked, i.e., boxed (e.g., a graphical box around the image or text that is being used). In this example, text1, text3, and photo2 are controlled content objects that are being used on this web page. In various embodiments, various indicators (e.g., visual cues) may be used to indicate the copied portions. Examples of indicators include: highlighting text, changing font appearance (e.g., using bold, underline, different fonts or font sizes, etc.), using different colors, displaying icons or other graphics in the vicinity of the copied portions, using time dependent indicators, such as causing the copied portions to flash, etc.” See ¶0129 – 130 also for more details.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Chen to provide the abilities of having a copyrighted work database from the copyrighted work supply server to store copyrighted work matching information and registration application specification information as well as having deriving units of: a list information extraction unit that extracts first copyrighted work list information as the basis for the creation of the second copyrighted works from the copyrighted work matching information and a filtering information generation unit to request contract conclusion information, compare the contract conclusion information transmitted and generate supply filtering information indicating whether online supply of the second copyrighted works is permitted, as taught by Brock in order to monitor “content and managing enforcement of non-compliant content” (¶0004; Brock), see also MPEP 2143.I.G. Further such ability provided by Brock into Chen system would have been obvious because the claimed invention is merely applying a known technique to a known method ready for improvement to yield predictable results. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 406 (2007). In other words, all of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention (i.e., predictable results are obtained by applying the known technique of monitoring and extraction of contract information using servers wherein the information is stored and retrieved upon request to compare copyrighted work matching information and their respective lists and generate supply filtering information for compliance indications to the known method and system for permitting the usage copyright works and providing “online supply service” (i.e. offering content distribution services through a particular platform such as “YouTube, Spotify, and Netflix)). See also MPEP § 2143(I)(D).
Regarding claims 5 and 13:
The combination of Chen and Brock, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claims 4 and 11, respectively.
Chen does not explicitly teach the ability of registration application specification information that includes information related to supply channel, a moral rights permission, a reuse permission and registration application fee or fees incurred. However, Brock further teaches:
wherein the registration application specification information comprises registration application supply channel information, registration application moral rights permission information, registration application reuse permission information, and registration application fee information for the second copyrighted works. (In ¶0106: teaches the “process for displaying compliance information (e.g., rules) to a content user wishing to use content on a content owner's website (as described at 203)” wherein such compliance information that includes “usage rules” such as “conditions under which a content owner permits the use of owned content” such as “different conditions depending on whether the use is for commercial or non-commercial uses, business or education uses, with or without attribution, in a limited amount, in a limited context, etc. The usage rules may be based on any appropriate compliance structure, such as “fair use,” “copy left,” “share alike,” Creative Commons specified structures, user specific compliance rules, rules against associating the controlled content with objectionable content (e.g., obscenity, adult content, child pornography), rules requiring attribution, moral rights, rights of personality, or any legal or personal compliance structure” which is directed to the registration application specification information claimed (see ¶0045). See ¶0098 for more details of “compliance information”.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Chen to provide the ability of registration application specification information that includes information related to supply channel, a moral rights permission, a reuse permission and registration application fee or fees incurred, as taught by Brock in order to monitor “content and managing enforcement of non-compliant content” (¶0004; Brock), see also MPEP 2143.I.G. Further such ability provided by Brock into Chen system would have been obvious because the claimed invention is merely applying a known technique to a known method ready for improvement to yield predictable results. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 406 (2007). In other words, all of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention (i.e., predictable results are obtained by applying the known technique of monitoring and extraction of contract information using servers wherein the information is stored and retrieved upon request to obtain registration application specification information items to the known method and system for permitting the usage copyright works and providing “online supply service” (i.e. offering content distribution services through a particular platform such as “YouTube, Spotify, and Netflix)). See also MPEP § 2143(I)(D).
Regarding claims 6 and 14:
The combination of Chen and Brock, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claims 4 and 11, respectively.
This independent claim set is represented by claim 6
Chen teaches that “the block chain may also store a copyright registration transaction for the derivative work” and can “can store a copyright registration transaction for a work of an owner of copyright” that upon a “copyright registration request”, the system “queries” the blockchain for “block chain apparatus (node)” that have a “copy of a block chain data” by sending “a keyword of cited work-related information to a block chain apparatus corresponding to a block chain that stores a copyright registration transaction” (see ¶0099; Chen). But Chen does not explicitly teach the ability of having a copyrighted work database, specifically from the copyrighted work supply server (see ¶0074 from Applicant disclosure) to store the copyrighted work matching information that is related to a list of the second copyrighted works created using the first copyrighted works and a list of the first copyrighted works used in the creation of the second copyrighted works. However, Brock further teaches:
wherein the copyrighted work database is configured to store, as the copyrighted work matching information, matching information related to a list of the second copyrighted works created using the first copyrighted works and a list of the first copyrighted works used in the creation of the second copyrighted works. (In ¶0039; Fig. 1 (106, 108 and 116): teaches a “Content database 108 contains references to controlled content and to matched content corresponding to the controlled content. In some embodiments, a separate database is used for matched content.” Further, in ¶0041, “controlled content, web data, subscriber data, and/or content data may be organized and stored in one or more databases”. See ¶0049 also wherein “the usage rules for content owners may be stored in controlled content store 116 (e.g., as metadata associated with the content object) or in subscriber database 106.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Chen to provide the ability of having a copyrighted work database, specifically from the copyrighted work supply server to store the copyrighted work matching information that is related to a list of the second copyrighted works created using the first copyrighted works and a list of the first copyrighted works used in the creation of the second copyrighted works, as taught by Brock in order to monitor “content and managing enforcement of non-compliant content” (¶0004; Brock), see also MPEP 2143.I.G. Further such ability provided by Brock into Chen system would have been obvious because the claimed invention is merely applying a known technique to a known method ready for improvement to yield predictable results. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 406 (2007). In other words, all of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention (i.e., predictable results are obtained by applying the known technique of monitoring and extraction of contract information using servers wherein the information is stored and retrieved upon request to retrieve copyrighted work matching information and their respective lists to the known method and system for permitting the usage copyright works and providing “online supply service” (i.e. offering content distribution services through a particular platform such as “YouTube, Spotify, and Netflix)). See also MPEP § 2143(I)(D).
Regarding claims 7 and 15:
The combination of Chen and Brock, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claims 4 and 11, respectively.
Chen does not explicitly teach the ability of having a copyrighted work interface unit from the copyrighted work supply server (see ¶0074 from Applicant disclosure) to transmit the supply filtering information and to support display of the supply filtering information. However, Brock further teaches:
wherein the copyrighted work supply server further comprises a copyrighted work interface unit configured to transmit the supply filtering information to the user terminal and to support display of the supply filtering information on the user terminal. (In ¶0126; Fig. 5: teaches in “the case of a content host monitoring for use of non-compliant content based on the host policy, an interface similar to interface 500 may be used to display resulting matches” as a “match with content associated with child pornography”, for example, or “rather than a match with a content object in a database of known pornography. In this case, in place of text1, there may be no image displayed, or data related to the evaluation may be displayed instead”.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Chen to provide the ability of having a copyrighted work interface unit from the copyrighted work supply server to transmit the supply filtering information and to support display of the supply filtering information, as taught by Brock in order to monitor “content and managing enforcement of non-compliant content” (¶0004; Brock), see also MPEP 2143.I.G. Further such ability provided by Brock into Chen system would have been obvious because the claimed invention is merely applying a known technique to a known method ready for improvement to yield predictable results. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 406 (2007). In other words, all of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention (i.e., predictable results are obtained by applying the known technique of monitoring and extraction of contract information using servers wherein the information is stored and retrieved upon request for viewing to the known method and system for permitting the usage copyright works and providing “online supply service” (i.e. offering content distribution services through a particular platform such as “YouTube, Spotify, and Netflix)). See also MPEP § 2143(I)(D).
Regarding claim 12:
The combination of Chen and Brock, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 11.
Chen further teaches:
wherein the generating of the supply filtering information comprises: extracting, by the contract management server, contract conclusion information for the first copyrighted works serving as the basis for the creation of the second copyrighted works requested from the copyrighted work supply server; and (In ¶0124 – 126; Fig. 5A – 5B: teaches that the contract information extraction unit directed to the “copyright authorization management apparatus” “communicates” with a “third-party IM (Instant Messaging, instant messaging) system” (directed to the copyrighted work supply server) via API calls (i.e. “copyright authorization management apparatus calls an interface of the third-party IM system”) to send and store “discussion group-related data and communication data” that involves the determination of “a copyright contract” (i.e. directed to extracting contract conclusion information to provide it) by “a copyright applicant and an owner of copyright through discussion” and the system further determines “a corresponding owner-of-copyright client and a corresponding copyright application client based on owner-of-copyright information and copyright applicant information”.)
Chen teaches However, Chen does not explicitly teach the ability of providing the extracted contract conclusion information specifically to the copyrighted work supply server. Thus, Brock teaches:
providing the extracted contract conclusion information to the copyrighted work supply server. (In ¶0029 – 30; Fig. 1 (104): teaches the copyrighted work supply server requesting contract conclusion information to then receive it from the contract information extraction unit as the system’s “Content ingestor 104 accepts controlled content from user 102” (see ¶0028), however, “the ingesting of content” can be “automatically triggered by content creation” (see ¶0029) and the “controlled content may be from the Internet or from another source” and “other data may be provided as input to content monitoring system 100, such as links (e.g., URLs or websites) identified by an administrator, content host, or content owner. These sites may have been identified because the user is aware of a specific instance of non-compliance at that location, they have historically posted non-compliant content or are of particular concern to the user. Other examples of additional data that may be input to content monitoring system 100” may be provided (see ¶0032) which is directed to the system’s contract information extraction unit specifically providing the contract conclusion information upon request (i.e. automatic trigger). Further, “a manual or automated API may be used to ingest content or perform any of the other processes described herein” (see ¶0031).)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Chen to provide the ability of providing the extracted contract conclusion information specifically to the copyrighted work supply server, as taught by Brock in order to monitor “content and managing enforcement of non-compliant content” (¶0004; Brock), see also MPEP 2143.I.G. Further such ability provided by Brock into Chen system would have been obvious because the claimed invention is merely applying a known technique to a known method ready for improvement to yield predictable results. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 406 (2007). In other words, all of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention (i.e., predictable results are obtained by applying the known technique of monitoring and extraction of contract information using servers wherein the information is stored and retrieved upon request to the known method and system for permitting the usage copyright works and providing “online supply service” (i.e. offering content distribution services through a particular platform such as YouTube, Spotify, and Netflix)). See also MPEP § 2143(I)(D).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Brock - b (U.S. Pub No. 20080178302 A1) is pertinent because it is “Making a determination of originality of content” and is “facilitating the negotiation, transaction, and/or enforcement of content license(s).”
Chen - b (U.S. Pub No. 20180374173 A1) is pertinent because it “relates to the field of digital copyright management technologies, and in particular, to a copyright management method and system.”
Zhao (U.S. Pub No. 20210065324 A1) is pertinent because it “provide a rights management method, a rights management device and a rights management system, which utilize the cryptographic, distribution, and tamper-resistant characteristics of a blockchain network, combined with a smart contract, to confirm rights such as copyright and patent rights and manage the use and transaction of derived rights related to the rights, and then provide guarantee to, for example, digital asset transactions, and protect the legitimate rights and benefits of rights holders.”
Nguyen (U.S. Patent No. 11244032 B1) is pertinent because it “relate to a system and a method for the creation and the exchange of a copyright for each AI-generated multimedia via a blockchain.”
Liu (U.S. Pub No. 20200193064 A1) is pertinent because it “resolve the previous problem, one or more implementations of the present specification provide a blockchain-based copyright distribution method, where the method is applied to a blockchain network including a copyright distribution platform node device and a user client.”
Singh (U.S. Pub No. 20250217785 A1) is pertinent because “a system to manage a contract between a plurality of parties is provided”
Park (U.S. Pub No. 20120005015 A1) is pertinent because it “relates to a method and apparatus for managing content obtained by combining works and advertisements using a public license which performs the registration, use, distribution, transmission, and calculation of the content.”
Ko (U.S. Pub No. 20080106772 A1) is pertinent because it “relates to a method and apparatus for use in reproducing pages, and in particular to a method and apparatus for allowing copyright compliance.”
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Ivonnemary Rivera Gonzalez whose telephone number is (571)272-6158. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 9:00AM - 5:30PM.
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, Nathan Uber can be reached at (571) 270-3923. 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.
/IVONNEMARY RIVERA GONZALEZ/Examiner, Art Unit 3626
/NATHAN C UBER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3626
Prosecution Insights