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
Claims 1-14 are pending in this instant application per original claims filed on 11/14/2025 by Applicant. Claims 1 and 14 are two independent claims reciting device (apparatus) and method claims. Claims 2-13 are dependent device claims.
One/1 IDS has been filed by the Applicant so far on 11-14-2025 that has been considered and entered.
This Office Action is a non-final rejection on merits in response to the original claims filed by the Applicant on 14 NOVEMBER 2025 for its original application of the same date that is titled: “INFORMATION PROCESSING DEVICE AND INFORMATION PROCESSING METHOD”.
Accordingly, pending Claims 1-14 are now being rejected herein.
Claim Objections
Independent Claims 1 & 14 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, lines 4 and 5 recite an acronym “VC” as in “achievement VC” and “issues the VC” respectively, which need to be corrected. Anytime an acronym is used in the claims, the first time it is recited in an independent claim, the full form of acronym must be spelled out by the Applicant.
Claim 14, lines 4 and 5 recite an acronym “VC” as in “achievement VC” and “issues the VC” respectively, which need to be corrected. Examiner notes that anytime an acronym is used in the claims, the first time it is recited in an independent claim, the full form of acronym must be spelled out by the Applicant.
Claim 10, lines 3-4 recite a limitation “an evaluation value” that is unclear and/or indefinite. There is sufficient antecedent basis for this limitation Claim 3; and both Claims 3 and 10 depend from independent Claim 1. Examiner asks for clarification from the Applicant if these two recitations from “an evaluation value” mean the same or not?? Examiner suggests changing said limitation to “the evaluation value”, or a similar modification of the Applicant’s own choice.
Appropriate correction is required.
Abstract Objections
The Abstract of the disclosure is object to because of the following:
Abstract in lines 6 and 7-8 recite an acronym “VC” as in “achievement VC” and “issues the VC” respectively, which need to be corrected. Examiner notes that anytime an acronym is used in the Abstract, and the first time it is recited should have the full form of acronym spelled out by the Applicant.
Abstract in lines 12 and 13 recite an acronym “NFT” as in “trade of NFT content” and “in an NFT marketplace” respectively, which need to be corrected. Examiner notes that anytime an acronym is used in the Abstract, and the first time it is recited should have the full form of acronym spelled out by the Applicant.
Appropriate correction is required.
Specification Objections
The Specification of the disclosure is objected to because of the following:
Specification in paras [0007]/[0008]/[0009], at least, recite an acronym “VC” as in “achievement VC” and “issues the VC” respectively, which need to be corrected. Examiner notes that anytime an acronym is used in the Specification, and the first time it is recited should have the full form of acronym spelled out by the Applicant.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (abstract idea) without significantly more, wherein Claims 1 and 14 are independent device and method claims respectively.
Exemplary Analysis.
Claim 1: Ineligible.
The claim recites a series of steps. The claim is directed to a device (apparatus) reciting a series of steps, which is a statutory category of invention (Step 1 -- YES).
The claim is analyzed to determine whether it is directed to a judicial exception. The claim recites an information processing device comprised of: a (score calculation) unit that calculates an achievement score of a creator who has produced content, using an achievement VC that certifies an achievement of the creator provided by an issuing institution that issues the VC. In other words, the claim describes a device capable of correctly evaluating an achievement of a creator (see Abstract). These limitations, as drafted, are steps of a device that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, clearly recites “mathematical concepts” consisting of mathematical calculations, but for the recitation of generic computer/s and/or computer component/s such as information processing device and a score calculation unit. These limitations fall under the “mathematical concepts” group (Step 2A1 -- YES).
Next, the claim is analyzed to determine if it is integrated into a practical application. The claim recites additional elements of: information processing device and score calculation unit. The devices and units in the steps are hardware recited at a high level of generality, i.e., as generic processors performing generic computer/s cfunctions of processing data. These generic processors are no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer/s and/or computer component/s. 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. Thus, the claim is directed to the abstract idea (Step 2A2 -- NO).
Next, the claim is analyzed to determine if there are additional elements in this claim that individually, or as an ordered combination, ensure that the claim amounts to significantly more than the abstract ideas (whether claim provides inventive concept). As discussed with respect to Step 2A2 above, the additional elements in the claim amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer/s and/or computer component/s. The same analysis applies here in Step 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer and/or computer components over a network cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. Because the additional elements described above in Step 2A, they are re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are extra-solution activities. The disclosure does not provide any indication that these devices and units (processors) are anything other than generic processors and the Symantec, TLI, and OIP Techs. court decisions (MPEP 2106.05 (d) (II)) indicate that mere collection or receipt of data over a network is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner as it is here.
Viewing the limitations as an ordered combination does not add anything further
than looking at the limitations individually. When viewed either individually, or as an ordered combination, the additional elements do not amount to a claim as a whole that is significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Therefore, the claim does not amount to significantly more than the recited abstract idea (Step 2B -- NO), and the claim is not patent eligible.
The analysis above applies to all statutory categories of the invention including independent method Claim 14, which performs the steps similar to those of independent device Claim 1. Furthermore, Examiner notes that the limitations of dependent device Claims 2-13, further narrow the independent device Claim 1 with additional steps and limitations (e.g., wherein the score calculation unit calculates an achievement score of the creator after collating information described in the achievement VC with basic information of the issuing institution stored in a database; wherein the score calculation unit calculates an achievement score of the creator using the achievement VC and an evaluation value of the issuing institution that has issued the achievement VC; wherein the score calculation unit further calculates a revenue distribution score of the creator using a plurality of the achievement scores; wherein the score calculation unit further generates screen data for displaying the revenue distribution score of the creator on a display, and transmits the screen data to a device of the creator; wherein the score calculation unit further recommends an achievement VC capable of increasing the revenue distribution score of the creator; wherein the score calculation unit further selects a creator with a high desired achievement score on a basis of achievement scores of a plurality of the creators; wherein the score calculation unit further generates screen data for displaying a plurality of creators having high desired achievement scores on a display, and transmits the screen data to a device of the creator; wherein the achievement VC is assigned to the content; further comprising an issuing institution evaluation unit that adjusts an evaluation value of the issuing institution that has issued the achievement VC assigned to the content in a case where the content is traded; wherein a revenue distribution rate of the content related to a plurality of creators is calculated in accordance with a revenue distribution score based on an achievement score of the creator and a contribution rate to the content; further comprising a verification unit that authenticates the creator and verifies the achievement VC; wherein the verification unit authenticates the creator by DID authentication, and verifies the achievement VC by VC verification; etc.), and do not resolve the issues raised in rejection of the independent device Claim 1. Thus, these dependent device Claims 2-13 are rejected as ineligible for patenting under 35 U.S.C. 101 based upon the same analysis.
Therefore, said Claims 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
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 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.
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 1-14 are rejected under 35 USC 103 as unpatentable over a combination of references (Tominaga, Choi and Cella) as described below for each claim/ limitation.
Independent Claim 1 is rejected under 35 USC 103 as unpatentable over Pub. No. US 2023/ 0238148 filed by Tominaga, Takanori (hereinafter “Tominaga”) in view of Pub. No. US 2003/ 0208439 filed by Choi, Wonjin (hereinafter “Choi”), and further in view of Pub. No. US 2023/ 0385956 filed by Cella, Charles Howard (hereinafter “Cella”), and as described below for each claim/ limitation.
Examiner notes that all claims have been copied as recited by the Applicant to keep them readable and whole, even if the limitations within a claim that are not taught explicitly by the primary/previous reference (are noted in parentheses), but these limitations are noted explicitly as taught by a secondary/new reference whenever a secondary/new reference has been used.
Examiner notes that, for brevity in this rejection, the motivation statement has not been repeated herein every time a secondary reference has been used.
With respect to Claim 1, Tominaga teaches ---
[Claim 1] An information processing device comprising a score calculation unit that (calculates an achievement score of a creator who has produced content),
(see at least: Tominaga Abstract and Summary in paras [0006]-[0010]; and Abstract about {“An information processing device, information processing method, and program which, acquire medical information collected when catheter treatment is performed on a patient; calculate a score related to a prognosis for each of a plurality of complications that may occur according to the catheter treatment on the basis of the acquired medical information; …”}; and para [0007] about {“An information processing device according to one aspect includes: a processor configured to: acquire medical information collected when catheter treatment is performed on a patient; calculate a score related to a prognosis for each of a plurality of complications that may occur according to the catheter treatment on the basis of the acquired medical information; …”}; and Claim 1; which together are the same as claimed limitations above to include ‘An information processing device’ and ‘a score calculation unit’)
Tominaga teaches as disclosed above, but it may be argued that it may not explicitly disclose about ‘calculates an achievement score of a creator who has produced content’. However, Choi teaches them explicitly.
(see at least: Choi Abstract and Summary in paras [0008]-[0021]; and para [0007] about {“Furthermore, in order for a content provider to create more innovative content, additional production costs are required, and until now, those costs had to be covered personally, making it difficult to receive external investment. …”}; and para [0008] about {“According to various embodiments of the present invention, a content securitization system can be provided that enables content creators (or content producers) to secure production costs through content securities and to promote content creation by sharing revenue generated from the content with content security investors.”}; and para [0013] about {“According to various embodiments, the revenue generated from the content may be revenue generated from all types of specific content designated by the content creator. (For example, in the case where content creator A produces music content and video content, depending on content creator A's selection, only all of content creator A's video content may be subject to revenue, or only all of content creator A's music content may be subject to revenue, or, of course, all of content creator A's video and music content may be subject to revenue.)”}; and para [0020] about {“The content securitization system according to various embodiments of the present invention can allow a content creator (or content producer) to secure production costs through content securities, and to promote content creation by sharing the revenue generated from the content with content security investors.”}; and para [0046] about {“The content provider terminal (40) is a terminal (or client) used by a content creator (e.g., a content creator (producer)), and the securities trading terminal (30) may be a terminal (or client) used by an investor who invests in content securities related to specific content, or all content of a specific type created by a specific content creator, or all content created by a specific content creator.”}; and para [0048] about {“According to one embodiment, the user of the content provider terminal (40) may be a content creator (or content producer) who is an individual or company that produces video content.”}; and para [0054] about {“ Additionally, the content securitization system (100) (or the content sharing platform (10)) may be a server operator that connects multiple content provider terminals (40) and multiple securities trading terminals (30) online to facilitate investment in content production and to distribute investment funds and content revenue to the content creator (or content producer), server operator, and content security investors according to their respective shares.”}; and para [0056] about {“Accordingly, the present invention enables the content creator to recover production costs early, enables the server operator to stably receive server operating expenses, and enables the content security investors to obtain investment returns. …”}; and para [0113] about {“For example, series content may be content repeatedly produced by the content creator under the same or similar category. For instance, it may be content operated in a seasonal format.”}; which together are the same as claimed limitations above to include ‘calculates an achievement score of a creator who has produced content’ per BRI rules)
It would have been obvious prior to the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have an ordinary person of skill in the art to modify the teachings of Tominaga with the teachings of Choi. The motivation to combine these references would be to provide an information processing device, an information processing method, and a computer program (see para [0002] of Tominaga), and in order for a content provider to create more innovative content, additional production costs are required, and until now, those costs had to be covered personally, but this invention makes it easier to receive external investment (see para [0007] of Choi).
Tominaga and Choi teach ---
using (an achievement VC) that certifies an achievement of the creator provided by an issuing institution that (issues the VC).
(see at least: Tominaga ibidem and citations listed above to include ‘An information processing device’ and ‘a score calculation unit’)
(see at least: Choi ibidem and citations listed above to include ‘calculates an achievement score of a creator who has produced content’)
Tominaga and Choi teach as disclosed above, but they may not explicitly disclose about ‘an achievement VC’ and ‘issues the VC’. However, Cella teaches them explicitly.
(see at least: Cella Abstract and Summary in paras [0015]-[0136]; and para [0633] for “venture capital service”; and paras [0815] and [0820] for “venture debt loan”; which together are the same as claimed limitations above to include ‘an achievement VC’ and ‘issues the VC’ per BRI rules)
It would have been obvious prior to the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have an ordinary person of skill in the art to modify the teachings of Tominaga and Choi with the teachings of Cella. The motivation to combine these references would be to provide an information processing device, an information processing method, and a computer program (see para [0002] of Tominaga), and in order for a content provider to create more innovative content, additional production costs are required, and until now, those costs had to be covered personally, but this invention makes it easier to receive external investment (see para [0007] of Choi), and to fulfill a need for a flexible, intelligent energy and compute facility that adjust in response to uncertainty and volatility, as well as for an intelligent energy and compute resource management system (see para [0014] of Cella).
Dependent Claims 2-13 are rejected under 35 USC 103 as unpatentable over Tominaga in view of Choi and Cella as applied to the rejection of independent Claim 1 above, and as described below for each claim/ limitation.
With respect to Claim 2, Tominaga, Choi and Cella teach ---
[Claim 2] The information processing device according to claim 1, wherein the score calculation unit calculates an achievement score of the creator after collating information described in the achievement VC with basic information of the issuing institution stored in a database.
(see at least: Tominaga ibidem and citations listed above to include ‘An information processing device’ and ‘a score calculation unit’)
(see at least: Choi ibidem and citations listed above to include ‘calculates an achievement score of a creator who has produced content’)
(see at least: Cella ibidem and citations listed above to include ‘an achievement VC’ and ‘issues the VC’; and Abstract for “collecting information”; and paras [0049]-[0052] for “information collected from social media data sources”; and paras [0106]-[0113] for “information collected from business entity behavioral data sources”; and paras [0114]-[0117] for “information collected from human behavioral data sources”; and paras [0251] and [0260] for “data collection services”; which together are the same as claimed limitations above to include ‘collating information’)
With respect to Claim 3, Tominaga, Choi and Cella teach ---
[Claim 3] The information processing device according to claim 1, wherein the score calculation unit calculates an achievement score of the creator using the achievement VC and an evaluation value of the issuing institution that has issued the achievement VC.
(see at least: Tominaga ibidem and citations listed above to include ‘An information processing device’ and ‘a score calculation unit’)
(see at least: Choi ibidem and citations listed above to include ‘calculates an achievement score of a creator who has produced content’)
(see at least: Cella ibidem and citations listed above to include ‘an achievement VC’ and ‘issues the VC’; and para [0319] about {“The terms value, valuation, valuation model (and similar terms) as utilized herein should be understood broadly to describe an approach to evaluate and determine the estimated value for collateral. …”}; and paras [0436] and [1673] about {“…… The value output for a category is the probability that the case being evaluated has that category. …”}; which together are the same as claimed limitations above to include ‘an evaluation value’ per BRI rules)
With respect to Claim 4, Tominaga, Choi and Cella teach ---
[Claim 4] The information processing device according to claim 1, wherein the score calculation unit further calculates a revenue distribution score of the creator using a plurality of the achievement scores.
(see at least: Tominaga ibidem and citations listed above to include ‘An information processing device’ and ‘a score calculation unit’)
(see at least: Choi ibidem and citations listed above to include ‘calculates an achievement score of a creator who has produced content’; and para [0010] about {“…… a revenue distribution unit configured to settle the revenue generated from the content as content revenue; and a revenue distribution unit configured to distribute the settled content revenue to the content creator or content security investors; wherein the revenue distribution unit may be configured such that the amount corresponding to the proportion allocated to the content creator from the settled content revenue is distributed to the content creator, and the remaining amount excluding the amount distributed to the content creator from the settled content revenue is distributed to each content security holder in accordance with their holding ratio of the content securities.”}; and para [0015] about {“According to various embodiments, the revenue distribution unit may be configured to distribute the settled content revenue to the content creator, the content security investors, or the content promoters.”}; and para [0016] about {“According to various embodiments, the revenue distribution unit may be configured such that the amount corresponding to the proportion allocated to the content creator from the settled content revenue is distributed to the content creator, …”}; and para [0017] about {“According to various embodiments, the revenue distribution unit may be configured to distribute, based on the revenue generated from subsequent content of the content, …”}; and para [0019] about {“…… settling the revenue generated from the content; and distributing the settled content revenue to the content creator and the content security investors based on the content securities.”}; and paras [0025]--[0028] about {“[0025] FIG. 4 is a schematic diagram for explaining the criteria for individual content revenue distribution according to various embodiments of the present invention. …… [0026] FIG. 5 is a schematic diagram for explaining the criteria for total content revenue distribution according to various embodiments of the present invention. …… [0027] FIG. 6 is a schematic diagram for explaining the criteria for content revenue distribution according to various embodiments of the present invention. …… [0028] FIG. 7 is a schematic diagram for explaining the criteria for series content revenue distribution according to various embodiments of the present invention.”}; and para [0053] about {“The present invention targets as an investment object ‘content securities’ that certify the right to receive distribution of revenue expected from content, or revenue generated from all content of a specific type created by a specific content creator, or revenue generated from all content created by a specific content creator. …”}; and a revenue settlement unit 140; and a revenue distribution unit 150; and para [0072] about {“The revenue distribution unit (150) may distribute the settled content revenue to the content creator or the content security holders based on the revenue distribution criteria. A detailed description of this will be provided later.”}; and para [0079] about {“The step of distributing content revenue based on the content securities (205) may be a step in which the revenue distribution unit (150) distributes the content revenue, settled by the revenue settlement unit (140), to the content creator or the content security investors according to the revenue distribution criteria. For example, the revenue distribution unit (150) may distribute the content revenue according to the revenue distribution criteria and deposit the corresponding amount into the account of the content creator or the content security investor. Meanwhile, the revenue distribution criteria (or the table storing the revenue distribution information) may be stored in the database (160), but is not limited thereto.”}; and para [0082] about {“Referring to FIG. 4, the individual content revenue distribution criteria (300) may be the criteria for distributing the content revenue generated from specific content.”}; and para [0083] about {“For example, from the total revenue generated from specific content, the content revenue settled by the revenue settlement unit (140) may be distributed to the content creator and the content security holders via the revenue distribution unit (150).”}; and para [0090] about {“Referring to FIG. 5, the total content revenue distribution criteria (400) may be the criteria for distributing content revenue generated from all content created by a content creator.”}; and para [0091] about {“For example, from the total revenue generated from all content, the content revenue settled by the revenue settlement unit (140) may be distributed to the content creator and the content security holders via the revenue distribution unit (150). …”}; which together are the same as claimed limitations above to include ‘a revenue distribution score’ and ‘a plurality of the achievement scores’ per BRI rules)
(see at least: Cella ibidem and citations listed above to include ‘an achievement VC’ and ‘issues the VC’)
With respect to Claim 5, Tominaga, Choi and Cella teach ---
[Claim 5] The information processing device according to claim 4, wherein the score calculation unit further generates screen data for displaying the revenue distribution score of the creator on a display, and transmits the screen data to a device of the creator.
(see at least: Tominaga ibidem and citations listed above to include ‘An information processing device’ and ‘a score calculation unit’)
(see at least: Choi ibidem and citations listed above to include ‘calculates an achievement score of a creator who has produced content’ and ‘a revenue distribution score’)
(see at least: Cella ibidem and citations listed above to include ‘an achievement VC’ and ‘issues the VC’; and para [0302] about {“…… Such an interface may serve to act as a way to receive or display data using visual representation, stimulus or interactive data, without limitation. A graphical user interface may serve as an interface for another graphical user interface or other interface. …… Graphical user interfaces may be configured for any input types, including keyboards, a mouse, a touch screen, and the like. Graphical user interfaces may be configured for any desired user interaction environments, including for example a dedicated application, a web page interface, or combinations of these. …”}; which together are the same as claimed limitations above to include ‘screen data’)
With respect to Claim 6, Tominaga, Choi and Cella teach ---
[Claim 6] The information processing device according to claim 4, wherein the score
calculation unit further recommends an achievement VC capable of increasing the revenue distribution score of the creator.
(see at least: Tominaga ibidem and citations listed above to include ‘An information processing device’ and ‘a score calculation unit’)
(see at least: Choi ibidem and citations listed above to include ‘calculates an achievement score of a creator who has produced content’ and ‘a revenue distribution score’)
(see at least: Cella ibidem and citations listed above to include ‘an achievement VC’ and ‘issues the VC’)
With respect to Claim 7, Tominaga, Choi and Cella teach ---
[Claim 7] The information processing device according to claim 1, wherein the score calculation unit further selects a creator with a high desired achievement score on a basis of achievement scores of a plurality of the creators.
(see at least: Tominaga ibidem and citations listed above to include ‘An information processing device’ and ‘a score calculation unit’)
(see at least: Choi ibidem and citations listed above to include ‘calculates an achievement score of a creator who has produced content’ and ‘a revenue distribution score’)
(see at least: Cella ibidem and citations listed above to include ‘an achievement VC’ and ‘issues the VC’)
With respect to Claim 8, Tominaga, Choi and Cella teach ---
[Claim 8] The information processing device according to claim 7, wherein the score calculation unit further generates screen data for displaying a plurality of creators having high desired achievement scores on a display, and transmits the screen data to a device of the creator.
(see at least: Tominaga ibidem and citations listed above to include ‘An information processing device’ and ‘a score calculation unit’)
(see at least: Choi ibidem and citations listed above to include ‘calculates an achievement score of a creator who has produced content’ ‘a revenue distribution score’; and para [0008] about {“According to various embodiments of the present invention, a content securitization system can be provided that enables content creators (or content producers) to secure production costs through content securities and to promote content creation by sharing revenue generated from the content with content security investors.”}; which together are the same as claimed limitations above to include ‘a plurality of creators’)
(see at least: Cella ibidem and citations listed above to include ‘an achievement VC’, ‘issues the VC’ and ‘screen data’)
With respect to Claim 9, Tominaga, Choi and Cella teach ---
[Claim 9] The information processing device according to claim 1, wherein the
achievement VC is assigned to the content.
(see at least: Tominaga ibidem and citations listed above to include ‘An information processing device’ and ‘a score calculation unit’)
(see at least: Choi ibidem and citations listed above to include ‘calculates an achievement score of a creator who has produced content’)
(see at least: Cella ibidem and citations listed above to include ‘an achievement VC’ and ‘issues the VC’)
With respect to Claim 10, Tominaga, Choi and Cella teach ---
[Claim 10] The information processing device according to claim 1, further comprising an issuing institution evaluation unit that adjusts an evaluation value of the issuing institution that has issued the achievement VC assigned to the content in a case where the content is traded.
(see at least: Tominaga ibidem and citations listed above to include ‘An information processing device’ and ‘a score calculation unit’)
(see at least: Choi ibidem and citations listed above to include ‘calculates an achievement score of a creator who has produced content’)
(see at least: Cella ibidem and citations listed above to include ‘an achievement VC’, ‘issues the VC’ and ‘an evaluation value’)
With respect to Claim 11, Tominaga, Choi and Cella teach ---
[Claim 11] The information processing device according to claim 1, wherein a revenue distribution rate of the content related to a plurality of creators is calculated in accordance with a revenue distribution score based on an achievement score of the creator and a contribution rate to the content.
(see at least: Tominaga ibidem and citations listed above to include ‘An information processing device’ and ‘a score calculation unit’)
(see at least: Choi ibidem and citations listed above to include ‘calculates an achievement score of a creator who has produced content’, ‘a revenue distribution score’ and ‘a plurality of creators’)
(see at least: Cella ibidem and citations listed above to include ‘an achievement VC’ and ‘issues the VC’)
With respect to Claim 12, Tominaga, Choi and Cella teach ---
[Claim 12] The information processing device according to claim 1, further comprising a verification unit that authenticates the creator and verifies the achievement VC.
(see at least: Tominaga ibidem and citations listed above to include ‘An information processing device’ and ‘a score calculation unit’)
(see at least: Choi ibidem and citations listed above to include ‘calculates an achievement score
of a creator who has produced content’)
(see at least: Cella ibidem and citations listed above to include ‘an achievement VC’, ‘issues the VC’ and ‘screen data’; and para [0262] for “verifying previous computations”, “verifying transactions”, and ‘verifying a blockchain”; and para [0263] for “a unit of consideration”; and para [0264] for “verifying content”; which together are the same as claimed limitations above to include ‘a verification unit’ per BRI rules; AND para [0342] for “verification of quality of receivables”; and para [0343] for “verification”; and para [0344] for “how best to balance the various debts to achieve a desired risk/reward position”; which together are the same as claimed limitations above to include ‘verifies the achievement VC’ per BRI rules)
With respect to Claim 13, Tominaga, Choi and Cella teach ---
[Claim 13] The information processing device according to claim 12, wherein the verification unit authenticates the creator by DID authentication, and verifies the achievement VC by VC verification.
(see at least: Tominaga ibidem and citations listed above to include ‘An information processing device’ and ‘a score calculation unit’)
(see at least: Choi ibidem and citations listed above to include ‘an achievement score of a creator who has produced content’)
(see at least: Cella ibidem and citations listed above to include ‘an achievement VC’, ‘issues the VC’, ‘screen data’, ‘a verification unit’ and ‘verifies the achievement VC’)
With respect to Claim 14, the limitations of this method claim are rejected under 35 USC 103 based on the exemplary analysis above for the rejection of device Claims 1-13 as described above using cited references of Tominaga, Choi and Cella, because the limitations of this method Claim 14 are commensurate in scope to limitations, and thus duplicates, of the above rejected device Claims 1-13 as described above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon, listed in Form 892, that is considered pertinent to the Applicant's disclosure and review for not traversing already issued patents and/or claimed inventions by the claims of the current invention of the Applicant. Examiner notes that Form 892 contains more references than those cited in the rejection above under 35 USC 103, and that all the references cited on said Form 892 are relevant to this application and form a part of the body of prior art.
The Examiner has pointed out particular references contained in the prior art of record in the body of this action for the convenience of the Applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. The Applicant should consider the entire prior art as applicable as to the limitations of the claims; and said prior art includes references with synonyms for terms used in the claims that have been interpreted under the BRI (broad reasonable interpretation) procedures of the Office. It is respectfully requested from the Applicant, in preparing the response, to consider fully the entire references as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the Examiner.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to Sanjeev Malhotra whose telephone number is (571) 272-7292. The Examiner can normally be reached during Monday-Friday between 8:30-17:00 hours on a Flexible schedule.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, the Applicant is encouraged to contact the Examiner directly.
If attempts to reach the Examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s
supervisor, Abhishek Vyas, can be reached on (571) 270-1836. The facsimile/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 & 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.
Electronic Communications
Prior to initiating the first e-mail correspondence with an Examiner, Applicant is responsible for filing a written statement with the USPTO in accordance with MPEP §502.03(II). All received e-mail messages including e-mail attachments shall be placed into this application’s record. The Examiner’s e-mail address is provided below at the end of this Office Action.
/S.M./
PSA Examiner, Art Unit 3691
sanjeev.malhotra@uspto.gov
/SANJEEV MALHOTRA/Examiner, Art Unit 3691
Prosecution Insights