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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 3/27/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments, see pages 11-15, filed 3/27/2026, with respect to the objection to claim(s) 1 have been fully considered.
Regarding the argument:
“The Office appears to be improperly interpreting the claims based on/to fit the art cited, and not instead on the Specification as filed. …”
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The objection is directed to a plain reading of the claims, and does not reinterpret any recited function. The objection simply seeks clarity in the language used in the claims.
Applicant arguments go on to point out distinctions in terms with support from the specification. Specifically, distinctions between an “experience,” a “computing environment,” and “services;” as well as distinctions between an “override capability,” an “override privilege,” and a “configuration dataset. Examiner notes that the intent of the objection is not to assert that these terms refer to a literal single element. Rather, the intent is to illustrate that some claimed relationships between the elements are superfluous and/or non-functional. For example, the claims recite:
A user device configured with an “override capability”
The user device sending a “configuration dataset” comprising an “override privilege”
The system using the “override privilege” to facilitate access by the user device.
These limitations are functionally indistinct from prior art which teaches a user device which sends an “override” which is used by the system to facilitate access by the user device. That the specification defines a “capability” as distinct from a “privilege” is tantamount to declaring that “having” an override” is distinct from “using” an override. This is obvious and inherent, and one skilled in the art would understand that each term (capability and privilege) is referring to the same “override.”
Examiner finally notes that this objection is made to aid in clarity and readability of the claims, and is not alleging that the terms render the claims indefinite. As Applicant has declared on the record that they wish to maintain the claims as drafted, this objection is withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see page(s) 15-16, filed 3/27/2026, with respect to the rejection of claim(s) 1, 2, 4-13, and 22 under 35 USC 112(a) have been fully considered and are persuasive. The associated rejection(s) to the listed claim(s) has/have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see page(s) 16-18, filed 3/27/2026, with respect to the rejection of claim(s) 1, 2, 4-13, and 22 under 35 USC 112(b) have been fully considered and are persuasive. The associated rejection(s) to the listed claim(s) has/have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 9-15, filed 10/6/2025, with respect to the rejection of claims 1-21 under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of GAY et al (Doc ID US 20170324986 A1) and MCMULLEN (Doc ID US 20210136080 A1).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, 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, 8, 9, 14, 17, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over GAY et al (Doc ID US 20170324986 A1), and further in view of MCMULLEN (Doc ID US 20210136080 A1).
Regarding claim 1:
GAY teaches:
A system, comprising: a processor; and a memory that stores executable instructions that, when executed by the processor of the system, facilitate performance of operations, the operations comprising ([0012] "… server 114 includes network interface 122, processor 125 and memory 124 and comprises an electronic computing device operable to receive, transmit, process and store data …"):
in response to the accessing of the at least one service by the system using the override privilege, generating, by the system, a payload for facilitating the operation of the privileged session by the client device ([0035] "... the data retrieval server 310 includes response processing logic 338 that formats the data for the particular client device in use, including its software version. The result is a time offset response 340 returned to the client device 330 (arrow eight (8))."),
wherein the privileged session is otherwise inaccessible to the client device absent use of the override privilege by the system due to at least one of a current time period corresponding to the client device or a region existingly corresponding to the client device, ([0050] "… If the user has time-travel privileges as evaluated at step 706, the token includes an indication of the privilege (step 708), otherwise the token does not include such an indication.") and
wherein the payload corresponds to at least one of an alternate time period other than the current time period or an alternate region other than a region existingly corresponding to the client device, ([0035] "... The result is a time offset response 340 returned to the client device 330 (arrow eight (8)).") and
wherein the payload is configured for use in operating the privileged session at the computing environment, by the client device ([0035] "... the data retrieval server 310 includes response processing logic 338 that formats the data for the particular client device in use, including its software version."); and
providing, by the system, the payload to the client device, thereby facilitating the operating of the privileged session at the computing environment, by the client device ([0035] "... the data retrieval server 310 includes response processing logic 338 that formats the data for the particular client device in use, including its software version."),
wherein, based on the use of the payload, the privileged session corresponds to at least one of: the alternate time period wherein the content streaming offerings correspond to the alternate time period, or the alternate region, wherein the content streaming offerings correspond to the alternate region ([0035] "... The result is a time offset response 340 returned to the client device 330 (arrow eight (8)).").
MCMULLEN teaches the following limitation(s) not taught by GAY:
receiving, from a client device configured with an override capability for accessing a computing environment, a client request for operation of a privileged session at the computing environment that comprises a group of services ([0025] "... user device 102 may generate a content request that is received by cache node 110 ..."),
wherein the privileged session comprises streaming of content offerings to the client device using the environment and at least one service of the group of services ([0025] "… the content request may correspond to a video service provider that caches content using content delivery network 110."),
wherein the computing environment comprises hardware, software, or both facilitating a streaming service platform, and wherein the services of the group of services are provided by computing components operated by a processor corresponding to the computing environment ([0002] "… content delivery networks now provide … video streaming …" and [0062] "... The applications may be distributed based on hardware requirements of the application, data cached at the cache nodes, geographic location of the cache nodes, or based on some other factor.");
obtaining, by the system, a configuration dataset from the client device, wherein the configuration dataset comprises an override privilege that is used, by the system, to facilitate the override capability of the client device, ([0041] "... at least a portion of the permissions may be determined based on the requesting user. In some examples, the permissions may be based on ... a token provided by the user, or some other credential or identifier …") and
wherein the override privilege is employed, by the system, to access the at least one service of the computing environment, in response to application of the override privilege by the system ([0033] "Here, in response to the request for the second application, the cache node determines that the customer is able to access application 140 (the second application) and initiates the second application.... Based on operations from application 130 and application 140, handler process 120 may provide content to a requesting user device."),
wherein the at least one service corresponds to less than all services of the group of services, ([0035] "... it should be understood that request handler process 120 may generate the request for the shared application. For example, an HTTP acceleration service may initiate a request for application 142 in shared applications 126.") and
Facilitating access to a time-restricted service by an authorized user is a known technique in the art, as demonstrated by GAY. Further, processing a request from a user for access to a streaming service is a known technique in the art, as demonstrated by MCMULLEN. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA) before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the restricted session configuration of GAY with the streaming service request processing of MCMULLEN with the motivation to use a known method of providing time-restricted content to a user and apply it to a streaming platform.
Regarding claim 8:
The combination of GAY and MCMULLEN teaches:
The system of claim 1, wherein the override privilege comprises a time travel privilege (GAY [0027] FIG. 2 is a block diagram showing a user 222 having time offset (“time-travel”) privileges.),
wherein a current client device session corresponds to a current time period (GAY [0027] "… A time-travel value may be an adjusted time value relative to the current time …"),
wherein the service maintains future data corresponding to the privileged session at a time later than the current time, wherein the time travel privilege allows access to the privileged session, (GAY [0027] "… A time-travel value may be ... an actual time in the future (or past) for which time offset data exists and is retrievable.") and
wherein the privileged session is inaccessible to the client device during a different client device session that is not associated with the time travel privilege (GAY [0054] "... One alternative is to call the time travel service for all users, while allowing only those time-travel privileged users to set an offset time value.").
Regarding claim 9:
Examiner notes that prior art is provided here in the interest of compact prosecution; however, this claim is directed to intended use and technically holds no patentable weight. Data regarding an "upcoming capability or product launch," or "experimentation information" is not functionally different from any other data stored by the method of the instant application.
The combination of GAY and MCMULLEN teaches:
The system of claim 1, wherein the payload corresponding to the privileged session comprises information, for an upcoming capability or product launch that has not yet occurred, or experimentation information, for testing a feature for a potential product launch (GAY [0029] "... consider that one time-travel user is designing a future user interface for viewing on a laptop computing device .... A supervisor or the like, e.g., a team lead or committee, can review each design and choose which one to use.").
Regarding claim 14:
This claim is rejected with the same justification, mutatis mutandis, as its counterpart claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 17:
The combination of GAY and MCMULLEN teaches:
The method of claim 14, further comprising: allowing access, based on the override payload, to a second target service that employs future data for generating the privileged session in response to a request from the client device during the session, wherein the second target service generates the privileged session (GAY [0027] FIG. 2 is a block diagram showing a user 222 having time offset (“time-travel”) privileges).
Regarding claim 18:
The combination of GAY and MCMULLEN teaches:
The method of claim 14, wherein the session comprises a first session, and wherein the override payload is a first override payload, and further comprising: returning a second override payload to the client device for use during a second session in accessing the target service or another service of the group of services of the computing environment (GAY [0035] "... The result is a time offset response 340 returned to the client device 330 (arrow eight (8)).").
Examiner notes that this claim seems to be reciting an iterative execution of the already claimed steps. The broadest reasonable interpretation of this claim is encompassed by a repeated execution of the claimed combination of prior art.
Claims 2, 4, and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over GAY et al (Doc ID US 20170324986 A1) and MCMULLEN (Doc ID US 20210136080 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of CHEN et al (Doc ID US 20050154888 A1).
Regarding claim 2:
The combination of GAY and MCMULLEN teaches:
The system of claim 1,
CHEN teaches the following limitation(s) not taught by the combination of GAY and MCMULLEN:
The system of claim 1, wherein the operations further comprise: maintaining, in a repository, the configuration dataset corresponding to a role of a client user in the computing environment ([0014] "... database 128 includes a plurality of access control lists 140 and a plurality of role profiles 146 …"); and
accessing the repository on behalf of the client user to obtain the configuration dataset for a current client device session of the client device in response to the receipt of the client request ([0028] "… security servlet 136 invokes JDBC to query database 128 to retrieve an access control list 140, including roles 142 associated with the user ID.").
Maintaining a repository of user data is a known technique in the art, as demonstrated by CHEN. It would have been obvious to a PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method for access to restricted streaming content of GAY and MCMULLEN with the user information repository of CHEN with the motivation to have accessible information about a user on hand which may be used as further verification of a user’s identity or validity of a user’s message.
Regarding claim 4:
The combination of GAY, MCMULLEN, and CHEN teaches:
The system of claim 2, wherein the role comprises at least one of: an editor client, a pre-release client, a beta user client, an experiments client, a test client emulating an individual end user client, a test client emulating a vendor client, a test client emulating a supplier client, or a test client emulating a business user client (CHEN [0016] "Role 142 indicates what roles or positions are associated with client 112 and thus the role profiles 146 that are associated with access control list 140. … role 142 may be other suitable roles such as ... customer role, vendor role, manager role, where each identify a corresponding role profile 146.").
Limiting types of client roles to a select list is a known technique in the art, as demonstrated by CHEN. It would have been obvious to a PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method for access to restricted streaming content of GAY, MCMULLEN, and CHEN with the client role list of CHEN with the motivation to limit client roles to those that are applicable to the use-case of the system. It is obvious to use roles such as customers and vendors when user roles are not otherwise specified.
Regarding claim 5:
The combination of GAY, MCMULLEN, and CHEN teaches:
The system of claim 2, wherein the operations further comprise: associating result information, obtained from the configuration repository, with the configuration dataset from the client (CHEN [0032] "… Next at step 328, security servlet 136 loads role profiles 146 with corresponding resource privileges 148 associated with the retrieved roles 142.").
Associating received user data with stored user data is a known technique in the art, as demonstrated by CHEN. It would have been obvious to a PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method for access to restricted streaming content of GAY, MCMULLEN, and CHEN with the user data association of CHEN with the motivation to utilize stored user data which may be used as further verification of a user’s identity or validity of a user’s message when associated with data received from the user.
Claims 6, and 10-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over GAY et al (Doc ID US 20170324986 A1) and MCMULLEN (Doc ID US 20210136080 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of CRONK et al (Doc ID US 20120008786 A1).
Regarding claim 6:
The combination of GAY and MCMULLEN teaches:
The system of claim 1, wherein the operations further comprise: overriding, by the system, an access restriction corresponding to the client device, using the configuration dataset (GAY [0035] "... The result is a time offset response 340 returned to the client device 330 (arrow eight (8))."),
CRONK teaches the following limitation(s) not taught by the combination of GAY and MCMULLEN:
wherein the overriding is of at least one of: asset purchase offering data, business rule data, or regulatory rule data that is associated with the at least one of the current time period corresponding to the client device or a region existingly corresponding to the client device ([0217] "… the rules engine comprises a supervisory entity which monitors and selectively controls content access ... so as to implement desired operational or business rules." and [0221] "The various billing rules may further take into account the customer's subscription level. For example, certain customers may be afforded access to certain types of content at no additional charges, whereas other customers may be required to pay additional fees to receive the content.").
Restricting access to data such as operational and business rule data is a known technique in the art, as demonstrated by CRONK. It would have been obvious to a PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method for access to restricted streaming content of GAY and MCMULLEN with the restriction rules of CRONK with the motivation to define particular types of access which is granted or restricted in the system. It is obvious to tailor a system for particular types of access to better provide access based on specific roles granted.
Regarding claim 10:
The combination of GAY and MCMULLEN teaches:
The system of claim 1,
CRONK teaches the following limitation(s) not taught by the combination of GAY and MCMULLEN:
wherein the operations further comprise: accessing global policy data to apply policy settings to at least one of: globalization default data, language data, region data, market selection data, experimentation data, privacy data, asset purchase offering data, entitlement data, telemetry data, or user experience configuration data to set the session context, for the privileged session ([0220] "... the engine may include rules for applying a pricing structure to requested content. In one embodiment, the rules may indicate a pre-selected amount of content hours and/or particular content which is offered to certain subscribers without a fee.").
Providing access based on privileges to apply policies to purchasing data is a known technique in the art, as demonstrated by CRONK. It would have been obvious to a PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method for access to restricted streaming content of GAY and MCMULLEN with the restriction rules of CRONK with the motivation to define particular types of access which is granted or restricted in the system. It is obvious to tailor a system for particular types of access to better provide access based on specific roles granted.
Regarding claim 11:
The combination of GAY, MCMULLEN, and CRONK teaches:
The system of claim 10, wherein the payload is incorporated into a session context object associated with a current client device session of the client device (CRONK [0151] "… If it is determined that a session already exists (not shown), the content may be provided to the user. ... In these situations, ... the MSO will automatically be made aware of the user's credentials and that the user is authorized to receive the content.").
Providing access based on privileges applied to an existing session is a known technique in the art, as demonstrated by CRONK. It would have been obvious to a PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method for access to restricted streaming content of GAY, MCMULLEN, and CRONK with the single sign-on rule of CRONK with the motivation to reduce the performance of redundant operations such as multiple authentication procedures for a client which has already been provided necessary access.
Regarding claim 12:
The combination of GAY and MCMULLEN teaches:
The system of claim 1,
CRONK teaches the following limitation(s) not taught by the combination of GAY and MCMULLEN:
wherein the computing environment comprises functionally-differentiated instances of running services ([0087] "The service providers 202 … include any broadcast provider (such as e.g., NBC, Turner Broadcasting, Viacom, etc.) which distributes content across one or more mediums …").
Examiner notes that the drawings further indicate that each service provider provides distinct content.
Providing access to services which are different to each other is a known technique in the art, as demonstrated by CRONK. It would have been obvious to a PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method for access to restricted streaming content of GAY and MCMULLEN with the resource variety of CRONK with the motivation to provide access to varying resources. It is obvious to provide access to differentiated sources for content in order to provide a client with a larger variety of choices.
Regarding claim 13:
The combination of GAY, MCMULLEN, and CRONK teaches:
The system of claim 11, wherein the functionally differentiated instances of running services comprise partitions, and wherein a partition corresponds to at least one of: a geographic location or a brand (CRONK [0087] "The service providers 202 … include any broadcast provider (such as e.g., NBC, Turner Broadcasting, Viacom, etc.) which distributes content across one or more mediums …").
Examiner notes that the drawings further indicate that each service provider provides distinct content.
Providing access to services which are different to each other is a known technique in the art, as demonstrated by CRONK. It would have been obvious to a PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method for access to restricted streaming content of GAY, MCMULLEN, and CRONK with the resource variety of CRONK with the motivation to provide access to varying resources. It is obvious to provide access to differentiated sources for content in order to provide a client with a larger variety of choices.
Claims 7 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over GAY et al (Doc ID US 20170324986 A1) and MCMULLEN (Doc ID US 20210136080 A1) as applied to claims 1 and 14 above, and further in view of MARTINI (Doc ID US 8738791 B1).
Regarding claim 7:
The combination of GAY and MCMULLEN teaches:
The system of claim 1,
MARTINI teaches the following limitation(s) not taught by the combination of GAY and MCMULLEN:
The system of claim 1, wherein the client device is located at a first location during a current client device session of the client device, wherein the privileged session is associated with a second location that is different from the first location (Col 2 lines 33-36 "… the method comprises receiving, from the client device … associated with the first physical location, a first resource request to access a resource …" and col 2 lines 46-50 "... receiving second information indicating that the client device is connected to the network at a second physical location, ... the second physical location ... different from the first physical location ..."),
Examiner notes that while the location of the resource is not explicitly mentioned, it follows that since the device can connect to the resource from two different physical locations, the resource location must by necessity be different than at least one of the device locations.
wherein the current client device session is configured with the override capability based on the override privilege, and wherein the privileged session corresponding to the second location is accessible to the system based on the override capability notwithstanding the client device being located in the first location (Col 2 lines 58-62 "… determining, while the client device is associated with the second physical location and based on receiving the second resource request, second access permissions for the client device to the requested resource …").
Accessing client location information is a known technique in the art, as demonstrated by MARTINI. It would have been obvious to a PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method for access to restricted streaming content of GAY and MCMULLEN with the client location of MARTINI with the motivation to provide location data to the system for use in determining access information. It is obvious to collect location information from a client when some provided services may depend on the location data.
Regarding claim 16:
The combination of GAY and MCMULLEN teaches:
The method of claim 14,
MARTINI teaches the following limitation(s) not taught by the combination of GAY and MCMULLEN:
wherein the client device is located in a first geolocation, and further comprising: allowing access, based on the override payload, to a second target service located in a second geolocation, in which the second target service is inaccessible from the first geolocation during a different session that does not correspond to the override payload, wherein the second target service generates the privileged session (Col 2 lines 33-36 "… the method comprises receiving, from the client device … associated with the first physical location, a first resource request to access a resource …" and col 2 lines 46-50 "... receiving second information indicating that the client device is connected to the network at a second physical location, ... the second physical location ... different from the first physical location ...").
Examiner notes the rejection of claim 7 regarding the different locations taught in the prior art.
Accessing client location information is a known technique in the art, as demonstrated by MARTINI. It would have been obvious to a PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method for access to restricted streaming content of GAY and MCMULLEN with the client location of MARTINI with the motivation to provide location data to the system for use in determining access information. It is obvious to collect location information from a client when some provided services may depend on the location data.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over GAY et al (Doc ID US 20170324986 A1) and MCMULLEN (Doc ID US 20210136080 A1) as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of ENGAN et al (Doc ID US 10652746 B2).
Regarding claim 15:
The combination of GAY and MCMULLEN teaches:
The method of claim 14
ENGAN teaches the following limitation(s) not taught by the combination of GAY and MCMULLEN:
further comprising: allowing access to a second target service based on the override payload, in which the second target service is inaccessible during a different session that is not based on the override payload, wherein the second target service generates the privileged session (Col 2 lines 3-6 "Once a network user possesses a secure device access token, the user may present the token to multiple secure service providers after going through an authentication step only one time.").
Accessing multiple resources with a single access privilege is a known technique in the art, as demonstrated by ENGAN. It would have been obvious to a PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method for access to restricted streaming content of GAY and MCMULLEN with the multi-use access token of ENGAN with the motivation to streamline client verification processes by allowing access to multiple resources with a single access token or privilege, provided the scope of access for each resource is reflected in the token. It is obvious to conserve network resources by avoiding unneeded authorization procedures.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over GAY et al (Doc ID US 20170324986 A1) and MCMULLEN (Doc ID US 20210136080 A1) as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of MITTAL et al (Doc ID US 20120102329 A1).
Regarding claim 19:
The combination of GAY and MCMULLEN teaches:
The method of claim 14,
MITTAL teaches the following limitation(s) not taught by the combination of GAY and MCMULLEN:
wherein the session comprises a first session, and wherein the override payload is a first override payload, and further comprising: returning a second override payload to the client device that adds to the first override payload and corresponds to the target service ([0101] "In response to receiving the user selection, the publisher 120 may send ... any change in access rights for the content on the client device 104A. The secure publishing system 110 may … send the updated access rights to the client device 104A ...").
Updating provided access rights to a client when their requested access changes is a known technique in the art, as demonstrated by MITTAL. It would have been obvious to a PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method for access to restricted streaming content of GAY and MCMULLEN with the access update of MITTAL with the motivation to allow a client to access additional resources whose access was not originally requested. It is obvious to provide a streamlined access update method to provide further authorized access to a client whose access privileges are already known.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over GAY et al (Doc ID US 20170324986 A1), and further in view of MCMULLEN (Doc ID US 20210136080 A1) and CHEN et al (Doc ID US 20050154888 A1).
Regarding claim 20:
CHEN teaches:
maintaining, by the processor, the configuration dataset in the computing environment ([0014] "... database 128 includes a plurality of access control lists 140 and a plurality of role profiles 146 …");
The remainder of this claim’s limitations are rejected with the same prior art mapping and justification, mutatis mutandis, as its counterpart claims 1 and 14.
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over GAY et al (Doc ID US 20170324986 A1) and MCMULLEN (Doc ID US 20210136080 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of KANDREGULA (Doc ID US 20190319932 A1).
Regarding claim 22:
The combination of GAY and MCMULLEN teaches:
The system of claim 1,
KANDREGULA teaches the following limitation(s) not taught by the combination of GAY and MCMULLEN:
wherein the operations further comprise: accessing, by the system, in connection with generating the payload, client aspects defining one or more client settings or preferences for use in generating the privileged session, and generating, by the system, the payload at least partially based on the client aspects ([0070] "... The DVBS 402 may also update or create an access condition matrix (ACM) derived from or based on various parameters associated with the user's preferences" and [0071] "The DVBS 402 creates an authenticated baton payload (ABP) at 444 based on information from the ACM. ...The ABP's baton payload can include information and parameters that identify the session uniquely.").
Creating a session token based on user preferences is a known technique in the art, as demonstrated by KANDREGULA. It would have been obvious to a PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method for access to restricted streaming content of GAY and MCMULLEN with the customized session token of KANDREGULA with the motivation to pass on user preferences within the session so that certain settings enabled in previous sessions would persist in a new session. This is a common quality-of-life feature.
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over GAY et al (Doc ID US 20170324986 A1), MCMULLEN (Doc ID US 20210136080 A1), and CHEN et al (Doc ID US 20050154888 A1) as applied to claim 20 above, and further in view of KANDREGULA (Doc ID US 20190319932 A1).
Regarding claim 23:
This claim is rejected with the same justification, mutatis mutandis, as its counterpart claim 22 above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRANDON BINCZAK whose telephone number is (703)756-4528. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 0800-1700.
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, Alexander Lagor can be reached on (571) 270-5143. 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.
/BB/Examiner, Art Unit 2437
/MENG LI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2437
Prosecution Insights