Reconsideration of this application is respectfully requested.
`
`Remarks
`
`Upon entry of the foregoing amendment, claims 1-23 are pending in the application, with
`
`claims 1, 7, 13, and 19 being the independent claims. Claims 1, 3, 5, 7, 13, and 19 are sought to
`
`be amended. Applicants reserve the right to prosecute similar or broader claims, with respect to
`
`the cancelled and/or amended claims, in the future. These changes are believed to introduce no
`
`new matter and their entry is respectfully requested.
`
`Based on the above amendments and following remarks,
`
`the Applicant respectfully
`
`requests that the Examiner reconsider all outstanding objections and rejections and that they be
`
`withdrawn.
`
`Claim Objections
`
`Claim 3 was objected to for the informality that there should be antecedent basis for “the
`
`licensing system.” Applicant has amended claim 3 as suggested by the Examiner.
`
`Claim 5 was object to because it is unclear to what the limitation “that is implemented by
`
`the multimedia device” is referring. Applicant has amended claim 5 to recite “that is for the
`
`multimedia device.”
`
`Reconsideration and withdrawal of the rejection is respectfully requested.
`
`Claim Rejections — 35 U.S.C. §103
`
`Claimsl 2 4-7 9-19 21 and 23
`
`Claims 1, 2, 4-7, 9-19, 21, and 23 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
`
`unpatentable over US. Publication No. 2003/0001887 to Smith et al. (“Smith”) in view of NPL
`
`“Online Video Analysis: YouTube Insight-Advanced Techniques” by Greg Habermann, May
`
`17, 2000 (“Habermann”) further in view of US. Publication No. 2013/0047271 to Tang
`
`(“Tang”). Applicant respectfully traverses the rejection.
`
`In order to expedite prosecution, Applicant has amended independent claim 1
`
`to
`
`incorporate at least the features of “after the evaluation of the request, extracting user data that
`
`is specific to the user that is attempting to reproduce the media content item when the user
`
`Response to Non-Final Office Action
`Application Serial No. 16/150,919
`Page 9 of 14
`25413058.1
`
`

`

`77
`
`(L
`
`acquires and declines the license,
`
`aggregating the extracted user data into a statistics record
`
`when the user acquires the license and when the user declines the license, wherein the statistics
`
`record summarizes the user data associated with the request,” and “analyzing a plurality of
`
`statistics records aggregated from requests for the media content item when the user acquires
`
`the license and when the user declines the license to provide the party other than the user with
`
`the aggregated user data.” Applicant has amended independent claims 7, 13, and 19 in a
`
`substantially similar manner.
`
`Smith references that family members may be added that provides a screen for the type of
`
`family member as well as other aspects such as demographic data, user preference information,
`
`user interests, and user specified machine characteristics. (Smith, 11 [0053].) Smith discloses that
`
`the user information may include user demographics such as the user’s age, sex,
`
`language,
`
`cultural background, interests in sports, outdoor activities and other interests as well as content
`
`preferences such as text only, still images, sound, or video.
`
`(Smith, 11 [0053].) Smith discloses
`
`that the server may then respond to user requests for content in a fashion that will take into
`
`account
`
`the user’s demographics,
`
`interests, and preferences in order to enhance the user
`
`experience by molding not only the type of content but also the manner in which the content is
`
`presented based on the user’s demographic, preference, and interest information.
`
`(Smith,
`
`11
`
`[0053])
`
`Smith discloses that billing information or other information once provided by a user may
`
`be retained at some central location such as the user’s machine or a server to allow the user to
`
`simply confirm billings for future transactions without having to reenter the information each
`
`time.
`
`(Smith, 11 [0083].) Smith discloses that the user information may be retained on a portable
`
`identification device (PlD) such that user identifies themselves to the P11) and when the user
`
`connects to the content provider such as Sony Music using the PID protocol,
`
`the user is
`
`prompted to purchase a license covering one or more songs or albums and confirmation is stored
`
`on the PID.
`
`(Smith, 11 [0083].) Smith discloses that the after the billing information is entered
`
`into the P11), the P11) is checked when the user requests content to confirm the license status and
`
`the content is provided to the user subject to the paid up license allowing the user to consume the
`
`content. (Smith, 11 [0083].)
`
`Response to Non-Final Office Action
`Application Serial No. 16/150,919
`Page 10 of 14
`25413058.1
`
`

`

`While Smith does reference that user information that may include demographics is taken
`
`into account for user requests of content to mold the type of content provided to the user as well
`
`as retaining the billing information of the user for future transactions, Smith fails to disclose that
`
`such demographics and billing information is then extracted when the user acquires and declines
`
`the license and then aggregated into a statistics record for the request when the user acquires the
`
`license and when the user declines the license. The user providing user information such as
`
`demographics that is then taken into account for user requests of content to mold the type of
`
`content provided to the user is not the same as extracting the user information when the user
`
`acquires and declines the license and then aggregating the user information into a statistics
`
`record for the request when the user acquires the license and when the user declines the license.
`
`Similarly, the retaining of billing information of the user for future transactions is also not the
`
`same as extracting the billing information when the user acquires and declines the license and
`
`then aggregating the billing information into a statistics record for the request when the user
`
`acquires the license and when the user declines the license.
`
`That is, Smith fails to disclose that user data is extracted, aggregated, and/or analyzed to
`
`provide additional insight to a party other than the user not only when the user acquires the
`
`license but also when the user declines the license. The user provides user information that is
`
`taken into account for requests of content to mold the convent provided by the user and is not
`
`extracted, aggregated, and/or analyzed to provide additional insight to a party other than the user
`
`not only when the user acquires the license but also when the user declines the license. Further,
`
`the billing information of the user is retained for the use in future transactions and is not
`
`extracted, aggregated, and/or analyzed to provide additional insight to a party other than the user
`
`not only when the user acquires the license but also when the user declines the license.
`
`Therefore, Smith fails to teach or suggest in amended independent claim 1, at least the
`
`features of “after the evaluation of the request, extracting user data that is specific to the user
`
`that is attempting to reproduce the media content item when the user acquires and declines the
`77
`(4
`
`license,
`
`aggregating the extracted user data into a statistics record when the user acquires the
`
`license and when the user declines the license, wherein the statistics record summarizes the user
`
`data associated with the request,” and “analyzing a plurality of statistics records aggregated
`
`Response to Non-Final Office Action
`Application Serial No. 16/150,919
`Page 11 of 14
`25413058.1
`
`

`

`from requests for the media content item when the user acquires the license and when the user
`
`declines the license to provide the party other than the user with the aggregated user data.”
`
`Tang does not cure the deficiencies of Smith, nor does the Office Action allege. For
`
`example, Tang discloses that copyright owners could require that distributors and/or publishers
`
`provide access to data derived from the sale of their copyrighted works.
`
`(Tang,
`
`11 [0074].)
`
`Providing access to data associated with a sale of a copyright owner’s work is not the same as
`
`providing access to user data when the user accepts a sale of a copyright owner’s work and when
`
`the user declines the sale of the copyright owner’s work.
`
`Therefore, Tang in disclosing that the copyright owners have access to data associated
`
`with the sale of their works, fails to teach or suggest in amended independent claim 1, at least the
`
`feature of “after the evaluation of the request, extracting user data that is specific to the user that
`
`is attempting to reproduce the media content item when the user acquires and declines the
`77
`(4
`
`license,
`
`aggregating the extracted user data into a statistics record when the user acquires the
`
`license and when the user declines the license, wherein the statistics record summarizes the user
`
`data associated with the request,” and “analyzing a plurality of statistics records aggregated
`
`from requests for the media content item when the user acquires the license and when the user
`
`declines the license to provide the party other than the user with the aggregated user data.”
`
`Habermann does not cure the deficiencies of Smith and Tang, nor does the Office Action
`
`allege. For example, Habermann discloses that a demographic report for a specific YouTube
`
`posting may be accessed in which the demographic report provides information such as the
`
`YouTube video 1]), title, gender of the viewer, age range, and the percent of viewership that may
`
`be used by “advertisers to target our ads to the precise people who are watching our videos.”
`
`(Habermann, Page 4.) However, Habermann fails to disclose that the demographic information
`
`is extracted from a license transaction when the user acquires a license to reproduce the
`
`YouTube video and when the user declines to acquire a license to reproduce the YouTube video.
`
`There is no mention in Habermann of any procedure to obtain a license to reproduce the
`
`YouTube video. Rather, Habermann discloses simply that demographic information of users that
`
`have accessed a specific YouTube video is provided in a report for that specific YouTube video.
`
`The providing of demographic information of users that have accessed a specific YouTube video
`
`in a report is not the same as extracting demographic information from a license transaction
`
`Response to Non-Final Office Action
`Application Serial No. 16/150,919
`Page 12 of 14
`25413058.1
`
`

`

`when the user acquires the license to reproduce the YouTube video and when the user declines to
`
`acquire a license to reproduce the YouTube video.
`
`Therefore, Habermann in disclosing that the demographic information of users that have
`
`accessed a YouTube video is available in a report, fails to teach or suggest
`
`in amended
`
`independent claim 1, at least the feature of “after the evaluation of the request, extracting user
`
`data that is specific to the user that is attempting to reproduce the media content item when the
`77
`(4
`
`user acquires and declines the license,
`
`aggregating the extracted user data into a statistics
`
`record when the user acquires the license and when the user declines the license, wherein the
`
`statistics record summarizes the user data associated with the request,” and “analyzing a
`
`plurality of statistics records aggregatedfrom requests for the media content item when the user
`
`acquires the license and when the user declines the license to provide the party other than the
`
`user with the aggregated user data.”
`
`Therefore, the Office Action has failed to state a case of obviousness with respect to
`
`independent claim 1. Amended independent claims 7, 13, and 19 recite substantially similar
`
`features that are likewise not taught by the combination of Smith, Tang, and Habermann.
`
`Dependent claims 2, 4-7, 9-12, 14-18, 21, and 23 are likewise patentable over the combination of
`
`Smith, Tang, and Habermann for at least the same reasons as the independent claim from which
`
`they respectively depend, and further in view of their own respective features. Accordingly,
`
`Applicant respectfully requests that the rejection of claims 1, 2, 4-7, 9-19, 21, and 23 under 35
`
`U.S.C. § 103 be reconsidered and withdrawn.
`
`
`Claims3 8 20 and 22
`
`Claims 3, 8, 20, and 22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
`
`over Smith in view of Tang and further in view of Habermann and further in view of US. Patent
`
`Publication No. 2010/029622 to Nikitin (“Nikitin”). Applicant respectfully traverses.
`
`As discussed above, the combination of Smith, Tang, and Habermann does not teach or
`
`suggest each and every feature of amended independent claim 1. Nikitin does not provide the
`
`missing teaching or suggestions with respect to amended independent claim 1 nor does the
`
`Office Action so allege. Therefore, the combination of Smith, Tang, Habermann, and Nikitin
`
`does not render amended independent claims 1, 7, 13, and 19 obvious. Dependent claims 3, 8,
`
`Response to Non-Final Office Action
`Application Serial No. 16/150,919
`Page 13 of 14
`254130581
`
`

`

`20, and 22 are likewise not rendered obvious by the combination of Smith, Tang, Habermann,
`
`and Nikitin for the same reasons as the independent claim from which they respectively depend
`
`and further in view of their own respective features. Accordingly, Applicant respectfully
`
`requests that the rejection of claims 3, 8, 20, and 22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) be reconsidered
`
`and withdrawn.
`
`Conclusion
`
`The Applicant respectfully requests entry of this response to the outstanding Non-Final
`
`Office Action, and requests consideration and allowance of the present application including
`
`claims 1-23. Timely action towards a Notice of Allowability is hereby solicited. The Examiner
`
`is encouraged to contact the undersigned by telephone to resolve any outstanding matters
`
`concerning the subject application.
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`By: _/Patrick J. Palascak/
`
`Patrick J. Palascak, Reg. No. 73,533
`Taft Stettinius & Hollister LLP
`
`425 Walnut Street, Suite 1800
`
`Cincinnati, Ohio 45202-3957
`Direct: 513-381-9358
`
`Response to Non-Final Office Action
`Application Serial No. 16/150,919
`Page 14 of 14
`25413058.1
`
`