DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This is a Non-Office Action responsive to communication received 10/22/2025.
Claims 1-20 have been examined and are pending in this application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 6-14, filed 10/22/2025, with respect to the rejections of claims 1-20 under 35 USC § 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new grounds of rejection is made in view of newly found prior art reference Jang et al. (US 20150020153). Jang teaches creating high customized profiles that contain personal profile information and information on media files. The users are able to upload media filed to a server associated with the online service. The rights of content owners are preserved by using a digital rights management service to identify uploaded media files. The media server submits uploaded media files to the digital rights management service to determine whether streaming of the media files is permissible. If it is decided that the streaming is not permitted then the server can block an uploaded file. This concept reads on the claimed invention.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 5, 8, 11, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Jang et al. (US 20150020153).
Regarding Claim 1,
Jang teaches a method, comprising:
receiving, at a digital rights management (DRM) server, data associated with a device security profile (DSP) from a content owner device controlled by a content owner,
[Content owners 27 provide usage rights information to digital rights management service 22, which digital rights management service stores in registry 26. (Jang et al., paragraph 35)]
wherein the content owner owns at least one content item stored at a content server for transmission over a network and has authority to establish rules for third parties to access the content item, the DSP is updated at the DRM server upon receipt of the data from the content owner device and specifies requirements for client devices to access the content item associated with the content owner;
[For example, a content owner might allow a song to be streamed over the internet while prohibiting the downloading of the song over the internet. Audio files can be streamed by sending data in real time to a media player implemented in the user's web browser from media server 12. A user can listen to an audio file that is made available in this way, but is not provided with access to a downloaded digital copy of the file. If desired, content owners can place restrictions on songs that are available for streaming (Jang et al., paragraph 50, placing restrictions can be interpreted to be requirements set to access the content); media server 12 is the claimed content server see paragraph 37]
storing, at the DRM server, the DSP and an indication of the content owner;
[Content owners 27 provide usage rights information to digital rights management service 22, which digital rights management service stores in registry 26. (Jang et al., paragraph 35)]
receiving, from the content server storing the content item associated with the content owner, a pull request for DSP updates;
[Media server 12 may consult digital rights management service 22 over network 28 to determine which usage rights are associated with a particular media file. Media server 12 may present media to users at computing equipment 32 over network 28 (e.g., as streaming audio or video) in accordance with usage rules 20 that are stored in database 12. (e.g., using related content media server 30). (Jang et al., paragraph 38)]
and transmitting the DSP to the content server in response to the pull request,
[The usage rights in the registry 26 are provided to digital rights management service 22 by content owners 27 (e.g., over communications network 28). After identifying the media file (e.g., by comparing its digital fingerprint, filename, file type, artist name, and other metadata to entries in registry 26), digital rights management service 22 can look up which usage rights are associated with the file in the registry 26 (optionally using information on a geographic location that is associated with the user's equipment) and can send all or some of this usage rights information to media server 12 for storage as usage rules 20. (Jang et al., paragraph 54)]
wherein the DSP is configured to cause the content server to limit access by client devices to the content item according to the DSP.
[Digital rights management service 22 identifies the media file and, based on this identification, provides media server 12 with information on the usage rules 20 that are associated with the uploaded file. The media server 12 can then store the usage rules 20 in database 14 and can provide users with access to the content of the uploaded media file in accordance with the usage rules. (Jang et al., paragraph 52, rules limit access to content)]
[Whenever it is determined that the usage rights for an uploaded media file do not allow the media file to be used by the service (e.g., because the file is identified as a blocked file or is identified as having usage rules that do not permit streaming of content), appropriate users (e.g., the uploading user) can be warned using a suitable on-screen warning (Jang et al., paragraph 94)].
Regarding Claim 5,
Jang discloses the method of claim 1. wherein the requirements for the client devices comprise, for a respective client device accessing a content item of the content owner, at least one requirement selected from the group consisting of a hardware requirement, a security requirement, or combinations thereof,
[For example, a content owner might allow a song to be streamed over the internet while prohibiting the downloading of the song over the internet. Audio files can be streamed by sending data in real time to a media player implemented in the user's web browser from media server 12. A user can listen to an audio file that is made available in this way, but is not provided with access to a downloaded digital copy of the file. If desired, content owners can place restrictions on songs that are available for streaming (Jang et al., Paragraph 50)]
Regarding claim 8 and 17, Jang discloses the method of claim 1 and the DRM server of claim 11, comprising: receiving an update to the DSP from the content owner device, receiving a second pull request from the content server, transmitting the update to the DSP or an updated version of the DSP to the content server in response to the second pull request, [, the content owner revises the usage rights that apply to the blocked media file. The revised usage rights permit streaming. At step 182, the content owner 27 supplies the updated usage rights information to the digital rights management service 22. The digital rights management service 22 updates the registry 26 to reflect the new version of the usage rules. (Jang et al., paragraph 116)].
[ The digital rights management service 22 informs the media server 12 that the usage rights for the media file have been updated. If desired, the media server 12 can request updates from digital rights management service 22 (Jang et al., paragraph 117)].
Claim 11, Jang discloses a digital rights management (DRM) server comprising:
a memory storing instructions,
[Each server may be implemented on one or more hardware platforms. For example, one server may be implemented using one or more computers. If desired, multiple servers may be implemented on the same computer. (Jang et al., paragraph 39)]
The claim recites substantially the same content as claim 1 and is rejected with the rationales set forth for claim 1.
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 9 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jang et al. (US 20150020153) in view of Cholas et al. (US 20180144106)
Regarding Claim 9 and 18, Jang discloses the method of claim 1 and the DRM server of claim 11, but fails to explicitly disclose transmitting, to the content owner device, code for generating a graphical user interface (GUI) to enter the data associated with the DSP; and generating, at the DRM server, the DSP based on the data associated with the DSP obtained at the content owner device via the GUI,
However in an analogous art Cholas discloses transmitting, to the content owner device, code for generating a graphical user interface (GUI) to enter the data associated with the DSP; and generating, at the DRM server, the DSP based on the data associated with the DSP obtained at the content owner device via the GUI, [Cholas et al., Paragraph 16, The program further comprises a module for generating a user interface, the user interface allowing a user of a content delivery network to log into a network server so that the rights profile can be provided to the host device].
Jang and Cholas are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of rights managed content delivery. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the instant application effective filing date to have modified the teachings of Jang to incorporate the teachings of Cholas et al. to include transmitting, to the content owner device, code for generating a graphical user interface (GUI) to enter the data associated with the DSP; and generating, at the DRM server, the DSP based on the data associated with the DSP obtained at the content owner device via the GUI, in order to provide authorization information to requesting entities. (Cholas et al., paragraph 157)
Claims 2-4, 6, 10, 12-15, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jang et al. (US 20150020153) in view of Gavade et al., (US 20190089772).
Regarding claims 2 and 12,
Jang discloses the method of claim 1 and the DRM server of claim 11, but fails to explicitly disclose wherein the requirements for client devices differ based on a resolution level of accessed content items, and the resolution level is based on at least one of a total pixel count, a pixel count per frame, or a pixel dimension measurement.
However in an analogous art Gavade discloses wherein the requirements for client devices differ based on a resolution level of accessed content items, and the resolution level is based on at least one of a total pixel count, a pixel count per frame, or a pixel dimension measurement
[Gavade et al., Paragraph 42, formats in which the content is stored (e.g., a high-definition format, a standard definition format, etc.), a resolution of the content (e.g., 1080p, 4K, 8K, etc.)]
[permission to access content at certain resolution differs based on the information stored on server devices about the user devices (Gavade et al. Paragraph 65)]
Jang and Gavade are all considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of rights managed content delivery. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the instant application effective filing date to have modified the teachings of Jang to incorporate the teachings of Gavade et al. to include wherein the requirements for client devices differ based on a resolution level of accessed content items, and the resolution level is based on at least one of a total pixel count, a pixel count per frame, or a pixel dimension measurement, in order to provide adequate content based on resolution, therefore, improving user's experience with the accessed data. (Gavade et al., Paragraph 14).
Regarding claims 3 and 13,
Jang discloses the method of claim 1 and the DRM server of claim 11, but fails to explicitly disclose wherein the requirements for client devices differ based on a resolution level of accessed content items, and resolution level comprises at least one of standard definition (SD), high definition (HD), or 4K.
However in an analogous art Gavade discloses wherein the requirements for client devices differ based on a resolution level of accessed content items, and resolution level comprises at least one of standard definition (SD), high definition (HD), or 4K.
[Gavade et al., Paragraph 42, a resolution of the content (e.g., 1080p, 4K, 8K, etc.)].
[permission to access content at certain resolution differs based on the information stored on server devices about the user devices (Gavade et al. Paragraph 65, 66)]
Jang and Gavade are all considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of rights managed content delivery. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the instant application effective filing date to have modified the teachings of Jang to incorporate the teachings of Gavade et al. to include wherein the requirements for client devices differ based on a resolution level of accessed content items, and resolution level comprises at least one of standard definition (SD), high definition (HD), or 4K, in order to provide adequate content based on resolution, therefore, improving user's experience with the accessed data. (Gavade et al., Paragraph 14).
Regarding claims 4 and 14,
Jang discloses the method of claim 1 and the DRM server of claim 11, but fails to explicitly disclose wherein the requirements for client devices differ based on a tag of the accessed content item.
However in an analogous art Gavade discloses wherein the requirements for client devices differ based on a tag of the accessed content item.
[Gavade et al., Paragraph 42, information that identifies a license (e.g., a DRM license, a license for a particular resolution of content, etc.), a set of security credentials, and/or the like and can receive information that indicates whether user device 210 can access the content stored by server device 220].
Jang and Gavade are all considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of rights managed content delivery. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the instant application effective filing date to have modified the teachings of Jang to incorporate the teachings of Gavade et al. to include wherein the requirements for client devices differ based on a tag of the accessed content item, in order to provide content owners with a security mechanism to ensure the further limiting of access to content to authorized users only and help prevent unauthorized distribution, (Gavade et al., Paragraph 65).
Regarding claims 6 and 15,
Jang discloses the method of claim 1 and the DRM server of claim 11, but fails to explicitly disclose wherein the DSP comprises: a first data structure representing resolution levels and the requirements for each resolution level, a second data structure representing tags of content items of the content owner and the requirements for each tag, and a third data structure representing device configurations that have exceptions to the requirements in the first data structure or to the requirements in the second data structure,
However in an analogous art Gavade discloses wherein the DSP comprises: a first data structure representing resolution levels and the requirements for each resolution level, a second data structure representing tags of content items of the content owner and the requirements for each tag, and a third data structure representing device configurations that have exceptions to the requirements in the first data structure or to the requirements in the second data structure,
[Gavade et al., Paragraph 47, information that identifies a license (e.g., a DRM license, a license for a particular resolution of content, etc.), a set of security credentials, and/or the like and can receive information that indicates whether user device 210 can access the content stored by server device 220. As a specific example, user device 210 can provide a token that identifies a DRM license along with an HTTP head request to CDN 240 and can receive a response to the token and/or the HTTP head request that indicates whether user device 210 can access the content identified by the HTTP head request and/or which content user device 210 can access if user device 210 cannot access the content identified by the HTTP head request].
Jang and Gavade are all considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of rights managed content delivery. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the instant application effective filing date to have modified the teachings of Jang to incorporate the teachings of Gavade et al. to include wherein the DSP comprises: a first data structure representing resolution levels and the requirements for each resolution level, a second data structure representing tags of content items of the content owner and the requirements for each tag, and a third data structure representing device configurations that have exceptions to the requirements in the first data structure or to the requirements in the second data structure, in order to provide adequate content based on resolution, therefore, improving user's experience with the accessed data. (Gavade et al., Paragraph 14).
Claim 10, Jang discloses the method of claim 1, comprising: receiving, at the content server, the DSP for the content owner, [Content owners 27 provide usage rights information to digital rights management service 22, which digital rights management service stores in registry 26. (Jang et al., paragraph 35)]
receiving, at the content server, a content request for a content item from a client device, wherein the content item is one of multiple content items associated with the content owner [Media server 12 may consult digital rights management service 22 over network 28 to determine which usage rights are associated with a particular media file. Media server 12 may present media to users at computing equipment 32 over network 28 (e.g., as streaming audio or video) in accordance with usage rules 20 that are stored in database 12. If desired, targeted advertisements or other suitable related content may also be presented to users over network 28 (e.g., using related content media server 30). (Jang et al., paragraph 38)]
Jang fails to explicitly disclose determining, based on the content request and the DSP, a resolution level of the content item for provision to the client device and transmitting the content item at the determined resolution level from the content server to the client device.
However in an analogous art Gavade discloses determining, based on the content request and the DSP, a resolution level of the content item for provision to the client device, [Gavade et al., Paragraph 65, permission to access content at certain resolution differs based on the information stored on server devices about the user devices],
and transmitting the content item at the determined resolution level from the content server to the client device.
[Gavade et al., Paragraph 42, a resolution of the content (e.g., 1080p, 4K, 8K, etc.)].
[permission to access content at certain resolution differs based on the information stored on server devices about the user devices (Gavade et al. Paragraph 65)]
Jang and Gavade are all considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of rights managed content delivery. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the instant application effective filing date to have modified the teachings of Jang to incorporate the teachings of Gavade et al. to include determining, based on the content request and the DSP, a resolution level of the content item for provision to the client device and transmitting the content item at the determined resolution level from the content server to the client device, in order to provide adequate content based on resolution, therefore, improving user's experience with the accessed data. (Gavade et al., Paragraph 14).
Regarding claim 19, Jang teaches a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions operable to cause a processor to perform operations comprising:
receiving, at a digital rights management (DRM) server, data associated with a device security profile (DSP) from a content owner device, [Content owners 27 provide usage rights information to digital rights management service 22, which digital rights management service stores in registry 26. (Jang et al., paragraph 35)]
The DSP specifies requirements for client devices to access the content item associated with a content owner,
[For example, a content owner might allow a song to be streamed over the internet while prohibiting the downloading of the song over the internet. Audio files can be streamed by sending data in real time to a media player implemented in the user's web browser from media server 12. A user can listen to an audio file that is made available in this way, but is not provided with access to a downloaded digital copy of the file. If desired, content owners can place restrictions on songs that are available for streaming (Jang et al., paragraph 50)]
storing, at the DRM server, the DSP and an indication of the content owner;
[Content owners 27 provide usage rights information to digital rights management service 22, which digital rights management service stores in registry 26. (Jang et al., paragraph 35)]
wherein the content owner develops a content item stored on a content server for transmission over a network.
[For example, a content owner might allow a song to be streamed over the internet while prohibiting the downloading of the song over the internet. Audio files can be streamed by sending data in real time to a media player implemented in the user's web browser from media server 12. A user can listen to an audio file that is made available in this way, but is not provided with access to a downloaded digital copy of the file. If desired, content owners can place restrictions on songs that are available for streaming (Jang, paragraph 50)]
wherein the content owner develops a content item stored on a content server for transmission over a network,
[For example, a content owner might allow a song to be streamed over the internet while prohibiting the downloading of the song over the internet. Audio files can be streamed by sending data in real time to a media player implemented in the user's web browser from media server 12. A user can listen to an audio file that is made available in this way, but is not provided with access to a downloaded digital copy of the file. If desired, content owners can place restrictions on songs that are available for streaming (Jang, paragraph 50)]
updating the DSP at the DRM server upon receipt of the data from the content owner device
[For example, a content owner might allow a song to be streamed over the internet while prohibiting the downloading of the song over the internet. Audio files can be streamed by sending data in real time to a media player implemented in the user's web browser from media server 12. A user can listen to an audio file that is made available in this way, but is not provided with access to a downloaded digital copy of the file. If desired, content owners can place restrictions on songs that are available for streaming (Jang, paragraph 50)]
receiving, from the content server storing the content item associated with the content owner, a pull request for DSP updates;
[Media server 12 may consult digital rights management service 22 over network 28 to determine which usage rights are associated with a particular media file. Media server 12 may present media to users at computing equipment 32 over network 28 (e.g., as streaming audio or video) in accordance with usage rules 20 that are stored in database 12. If desired, targeted advertisements or other suitable related content may also be presented to users over network 28 (e.g., using related content media server 30). (Jang et al., paragraph 38)]
and transmitting the DSP to the content server in response to the pull request,
[The usage rights in the registry 26 are provided to digital rights management service 22 by content owners 27 (e.g., over communications network 28). After identifying the media file (e.g., by comparing its digital fingerprint, filename, file type, artist name, and other metadata to entries in registry 26), digital rights management service 22 can look up which usage rights are associated with the file in the registry 26 (optionally using information on a geographic location that is associated with the user's equipment) and can send all or some of this usage rights information to media server 12 for storage as usage rules 20. (Jang et al., paragraph 54)]
Jang fails to teach the requirements differ based on a resolution level of accessed content items, and the resolution level is based on at least one of a total pixel count, a pixel count per frame, or a pixel dimension measurement;
However, in an analogous art Gavade teaches the requirements differ based on a resolution level of accessed content items, [permission to access content at certain resolution differs based on the information stored on server devices about the user devices (Gavade et al. Paragraph 65),
And the resolution level is based on at least one of a total pixel count, a pixel count per frame, or a pixel dimension measurement;[Gavade et al., Paragraph 42, formats in which the content is stored (e.g., a high-definition format, a standard definition format, etc.), a resolution of the content (e.g., 1080p, 4K, 8K, etc.)],
Jang and Gavade are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of rights managed content delivery. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the instant application effective filing date to have modified the teachings of Jang to incorporate the teachings of Gavade et al. to include the requirements differ based on a resolution level of accessed content items And the resolution level is based on at least one of a total pixel count, a pixel count per frame, or a pixel dimension measurement, in order to provide adequate content based on resolution, therefore, improving user's experience with the accessed data. (Gavade et al., Paragraph 14).
Regarding claim 20, Jang in further view of Gavade discloses the he non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 19 wherein the requirements for client devices comprise hardware requirements and security requirements of the client devices accessing the content item associated with the content owner.
[For example, a content owner might allow a song to be streamed over the internet while prohibiting the downloading of the song over the internet. Audio files can be streamed by sending data in real time to a media player implemented in the user's web browser from media server 12. A user can listen to an audio file that is made available in this way, but is not provided with access to a downloaded digital copy of the file. If desired, content owners can place restrictions on songs that are available for streaming (Jang et al., Paragraph 50)]
Claims 7 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jang et al. (US 20150020153) in view of Watanabe et al. (US 20050166086).
Regarding claim 7 and 16, Jang discloses the method of claim 1 and the DRM server of claim 11, but fail to explicitly disclose upon failing, during a predetermined time period, to receive a pull request for the DSP updates from a second content server storing the content item associated with the content owner, pushing the DSP to the second content server,
However in an analogous art Watanabe discloses upon failing, during a predetermined time period, to receive a pull request for the DSP updates from a second content server storing the content item associated with the content owner, pushing the DSP to the second content server,
[each time the main-storage control apparatus updates the location information table, the main-storage control apparatus transmits a content of the update to the backup-storage control apparatus. The backup-storage control apparatus receives the content of the update, and updates its location information table to maintain the location information table in a latest status constantly. (Watanabe et al., paragraph 103)]
Jang and Watanabe are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of rights managed content delivery. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the instant application effective filing date to have modified the teachings of Jang to incorporate the teachings of Watanabe et al. to include upon failing, during a predetermined time period, to receive a pull request for the DSP updates from a second content server storing the content item associated with the content owner, pushing the DSP to the second content server, in order to maintain the location information table without a delay in updates and in a latest status constantly. (Watanabe et al., paragraph
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL ELAHIAN whose telephone number is (703) 756-1284. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday – Friday from 7:30am to 5pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Catherine Thiaw can be reached at telephone number 571-270-1138. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center and the Private Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center or Private PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center and Private PAIR for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/D.E./DANIEL ELAHIAN, Examiner, Art Unit 2407
/Catherine Thiaw/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2407 7/23/2026
Prosecution Insights