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 .
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.
Acknowledgements
This Final Office Action is in reply to Applicant’s response filed 19 November 2025 (“Response”).
Claims 22, 23, 30 and 31 have been amended.
Claims 1-21, 24-25, 28-29, 32-33, 36-37, and 39-48 have/had been canceled.
Claims 38 and 49–53 had been withdrawn.
Claims 22–23, 26–27, 30–31, 34–35, 38, and 49–53 are pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 22–23, 26–27, 30–31, and 34–35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Per claim 22, the claim recites in part “receiving, by a remote server over a network, a request from an entertainment system, the request being in regard to accessing a set of digital media assets including an unrestricted set of digital media assets, a first restricted set of digital media assets, and a second restricted set of digital media assets, the first restricted set of digital media assets being associated with a first unique identifier and the second restricted set of digital media assets being associated with a second unique identifier, wherein the first unique identifier is an identifier specific to a storage medium of the set of digital media assets in combination with a first event code specific to the first restricted set of digital media assets, and wherein the second unique identifier is the identifier specific to the storage medium of the set digital media assets in combination with a second event code specific to the second restricted set of digital media assets, wherein the request seeks access to the first restricted set of digital media assets and includes the first unique identifier” followed by step(s) that results in either providing access or restricting access to the first restricted set of digital media assets. The scope of the claim is unclear as the claim recites that the request is “being in regard to accessing a set of digital media assets including an unrestricted set of digital media assets, a first restricted set of digital media assets, and a second restricted set of digital media assets, the first restricted set of digital media assets being associated with a first unique identifier and the second restricted set of digital media assets being associated with a second unique identifier”. In other word, the request is for accessing a set of digital assets including three sets of digital assets, one being unrestricted set of digital media assets, second being a first restricted set of digital media assets, and the third being a second restricted set of digital media assets. The claim, however, contradicts by reciting that the request seeks access to the first restricted set of digital media assets and follows by step(s) in either restricting/providing access to the first restricted set of digital media assets, while omitting restricting/providing access to the unrestricted set of digital media assets and the second restricted set of digital media assets.
Claim 30 is significantly similar to claim 22. As such, the claim is also rejected.
For the purpose of compact prosecution, the action will interpret as the request is for access to the first restricted set of digital media assets and wherein the request includes the first unique identifier.
The dependent claim(s) are rejected as they depend on the independent claim(s).
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. § 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, 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 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 22–23, 27, 30–31, and 35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over US 2004/0052378 A1 (“Shiragami”), in view of US 8,504,652 B2 (“Rothschild”), US 2002/0032658 A1 (“Oki”) and US 2013/0311781 A1 (“Wang”).
As per claims 22 and 30, Shiragami discloses a method comprising:
receiving, by a remote server (i.e., content management device in Fig. 1; ¶0067-¶0119, description of the content management device including key distribution) over a network, a request from an entertainment system (i.e., playback device such as user client in Fig. 1; ¶0128-¶0188), the request being in regard to accessing a set of digital media assets (i.e., recording medium 20 in Fig. 1, ¶0120-¶0127) including a first restricted set of digital media assets, and a second restricted set of digital media assets, the first restricted set of digital media assets being associated with a first unique identifier and the second restricted set of digital media assets being associated with a second unique identifier (Fig. 8; ¶0122-¶0123), wherein the first unique identifier is a first event code specific to the first restricted set of digital media assets, and wherein the second unique identifier is a second event code specific to the second restricted set of digital media assets (Fig. 8), wherein the request seeks access to the first restricted set of digital media assets and includes the first unique identifier (¶0132, requests a decryption key from contents management server 10 for selected content);
determining, by the remote server in response to the request, whether a release event or a purchase event relating to the first restricted set of digital media assets has occurred (¶0212, release period (start) and the release period (end) included in the read content information judges whether a present time is within the release period);
when determining determines that the release event or the purchase event has occurred (¶0212): identifying, using the first event code specific to the first restricted set of digital media assets, by the remote server, an unlock code; and providing, by the remote server over the network, the unlock code, the unlock code providing the entertainment system with access to the first restricted set of digital media assets (Fig. 2, 10 content management server that includes Decryption Key Table 140; Fig. 6; ¶0100, unit judges whether to transmit a decryption key of a content corresponding to the received content ID; ¶0142, receives decryption keys and the like from contents management server; ¶0155, requesting decryption of selected content; ¶0180, upon selecting of the content, transmit content ID and a user ID. Control unit on receipt of a decryption key from contents management server via transmit/receive unit 301, acquires the encrypted content from input/output unit 306 and outputs the encrypted content to decryption unit 305 together with the decryption key; ¶0201; ¶0221, control the disclosure of contents according to release periods as a result of contents management server 10 managing information relating to contents and users, with respect to encrypted contents stored on recording medium 20 and distributed to users);
when determining determines that the release event or the purchase event has not occurred (¶0212): restricting, by the remote server, access to the first restricted set of digital media assets by the entertainment system (¶0212, when no, unit 103 outputs an error message notifying that now is not the release period; ¶0221, control the disclosure of contents according to release periods as a result of contents management server 10 managing information relating to contents and users, with respect to encrypted contents stored on recording medium 20 and distributed to users);
wherein determining and use of the first unique identifier and the unlock code prevent piracy by providing security against unauthorized access to the first restricted set of digital media assets (¶0221)(the applicant is reminded that by Shiragami disclosing controlling access to the first restricted set of digital media assets using the first unique identifier, i.e., content ID and unlock code, i.e., decryption key, as described above results providing security against unauthorized access to the first restricted set of digital media assets).
Shiragami further teaches a system comprising a memory and a processor (¶0070).
Shiragami does not teach that the set of digital media assets includes an unrestricted set of digital media assets.
Rothchild, however, teaches storing of unrestricted set of digital media assets along with encrypted sets of digital media assets (Fig. 2; col. 6, lines 41-49).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of instant claim to include the technique of storing of unrestricted set of digital media assets along with encrypted media asset as taught by Rothchild to Shiragami for the purpose of improvement of marketing schemes (Rothchild: col. 9, line 17 – col. 10, line 43). The applicant is reminded that the description of request is non-functional descriptive material as the description does not affect the positively recited step(s) of receiving, determining, identifying and providing the unlock code for the first restricted set of digital media assets when determining determines that the release event or the purchase event has occurred or restricting access to the first restricted set of digital media assets by the entertainment system in the method claim or the functions of the process (i.e., similar to the positively recited steps in the method claim) in the system claim.
Shiragami/Rothchild does not particularly teach that the first restricted set of digital media assets is associated with a first unique identifier that is an identifier specific to a storage medium of the set of digital media assets in combination with a first event code specific to the first restricted set of digital media asset and that the second restricted set of digital media assets is associated with a second unique identifier that is the identifier specific to the storage medium of the set digital media assets in combination with a second event code specific to the second restricted set of digital media assets.
Oki, however, teaches a technique of assigning of unique name by adding CD number (an identifier specific to a storage medium of the set of digital media assets) and content number (event code specific to digital media assets)(see ¶0110).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of instant claim to substitute one known technique of identification of content as shown in Oki to the identification of the content in Shiragami/Rothchild. Since each individual element and its functions are shown in the prior art, albeit shown in separate references, the difference between the claimed subject matter and the prior art rests not on any individual element or function but in the very combination itself - that is in the substitution of the identification of content as disclosed in Oki as identification of content which is used for identifying of the content in Shiragami/Rothchild. Thus, the simple substitution of one known technique for another producing a predictable result renders the claim obvious.
Shiragami/Rothchild/Oki does not, but Wang teaches the first lock is derived from the first event code (¶0080, deriving decryption key from content ID).
Hence, as Shriragami/Rothschild/Oki teaches unlock code that is used to unlock the lock content including unlock code being a decryption key (Shriragami: ¶0086; Rothschild: col. 14, lines 28-30), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of instant claim to utilize any known technique in generating the decryption key including the technique taught by Wang as the derivation technique of deriving the unlock code in Rothschild/Shriragami/Oki as the combination is simple substitution of one known technique for another producing a predictable result renders the claim obvious.
Furthermore, the applicant is reminded that the description of how the unlock code was derive does not move to distinguish over the prior art as the description does not affect the positively recited step(s) of receiving, determining, identifying and providing the unlock code for the first restricted set of digital media assets when determining determines that the release event or the purchase event has occurred or restricting access to the first restricted set of digital media assets by the entertainment system in the method claim or the functions of the process (i.e., similar to the positively recited steps in the method claim) in the system claim.
In further regards to the method claim 22, the examiner submits that the claim is directed to a process claim. As such, as long as the prior art teaches one path of determining result, the prior art reads on the claim.
As per claims 23 and 31, Shiragami/Rothschild/Oki/Wang teaches the method of claim 22, wherein the unlock code is provided when determining determines that the release event relating to the first restricted set of digital media assets has occurred (Shiragami: Fig. 5; ¶0212, release period (start) and the release period (end) included in the read content information judges whether a present time is within the release period)).
As per claims 27 and 35, Shiragami/Rothchild/Oki/Wang teaches the method of claim 22, wherein the second restricted set of digital media assets includes at least one additional media asset that is not included in the first restricted set of digital media assets (Shiragami: ¶0023) (Rothschild: col. 4, lines 8–52). Furthermore, the description of the second restricted set of digital content, i.e., does not move to distinguish over prior art as the description does not affect the positively recited step(s) of receiving of the request, obtaining the respective unlock code and providing of the obtained respective unlock code in the method claim nor the function(s), i.e., receiving of the request, obtaining the respective unlock code and providing of the obtained respective unlock code, of the processor.
Claims 26 and 34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Shiragami/Rothchild/Oki/Wang, in view of Mekikian (US 2007/0162335 A1).
As per claims 26 and 34, Shiragami/Rothschild/Oki/Wang teaches the method of claim 22, wherein the unrestricted set of digital media assets includes a version of a media content asset with advertisements (Rothschild: col. 4, lines 14–16).
Shiragami/Rothschild/Oki/Wang does not expressly disclose the first restricted set of digital media assets includes an advertisement-free version of the media content asset.
However, Mekikian teaches an advertisement-free version of a media content asset (e.g., [0076]).
Since each individual element and its function are shown in the prior art, albeit shown in separate references, the difference between the claimed subject matter and the prior art rests not on any individual element or function but in the very combination itself – that is in the substitution of the two media assets of Mekikian (i.e., a first media asset with advertisements and a second media asset that is an advertisement-free version of the first media asset) for two of the media assets of Shiragami/ Rothschild/Oki/Wang. Thus, the simple substitution of one known element for another, producing predictable results, renders the claim obvious.
Claim 34 contains language similar to claim 26 as discussed in the preceding paragraphs, and for reasons similar to those discussed above, claim 34 is also rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over the cited references.
Response to the Argument
112
The claims remain rejected under 112 for the reasons outlined above.
101
101 rejection is withdrawn in light of the applicant’s argument.
Prior Art
The Applicant’s does not provide argument. The statement of rejection has been changed necessitated by the amendment.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US Patent Publication No. 20020184259 discloses a data reproducing/recording method and apparatus including multiple contents, each being encrypted with different key and each with IDs; US 20060253910 A1 discloses a technique of providing permission based on combination of medium ID and sub content ID; US 6028936A discloses calculating unlock code from information provided with the recorded media.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEVEN S KIM whose telephone number is (571)270-5287. The examiner can normally be reached Monday -Friday: 7:00 - 3:30.
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, Patrick McAtee can be reached at 571-272-7575. 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.
/STEVEN S KIM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3698