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 .
Amendment filed on 02/25/2026 is acknowledged. Claims 1-21 are currently pending and have been considered below. Claim 1, 8 and 15 are independent claim. Claim 1, 8 and 15 have been amended. Claim 21 is added new. Claim 6 is cancelled.
Double patenting rejection is withdrawn in view of the terminal disclaimer filed on 04/28/2025.
Priority
This application is a CON of application 17/233,978 filed on 04/19/2021 (US Patent 11520861). Application 17/233,978 is a CON of application 15/926,814 filed on 03/20/2018 and US Patent No 11010453. 15/926,814 claims priority of provisional application PRO 62/612,025 filed on 12/29/2017.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments added in the amendment filed on 02/25/2026 have been fully considered but moot in view of new ground of rejection. The reasons set forth below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102 of this title, 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.
Claim 1-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Swenson (US Patent Application No 2010/0325417 A1) in view of Grab (US Patent Application No 2013/0004142 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Swenson discloses an automated process comprising:
receiving, by a processor, a request to copy a file containing a first piece of content from a first playback device to a second playback device distinct from the first playback device (Swenson, ¶[0012]- ¶[0015], a first digital request corresponding to a first request for use of the content is transmitted from a secondary device to the first device. The second digital license governs the use of the content by the secondary device and has a second expiration time period that is less than the first expiration time period);
wherein the first device sends the first piece of content over a wireless communication channel to the second device to copy the file (Swenson, ¶[0033]- ¶[0035], the content or service provider issuing the original license or usage rights to the end user of the local server controls whether or not this streaming is allowed and whether a limit is placed on the number of client devices that may simultaneously render the streamed content governed by the usage rights);
updating, by the processor, digital rights management (DRM) data to enable the first device or the second device to playback the first piece of content from the file (Swenson, ¶[0044], the client device controls the transmission of the protected content by decrypting and rendering the content. ¶[0047], the content provider system issues the original usage rights to the local server. The original usage rights specify whether the local server can delegate content rendering rights to the client device. ¶[0049]- ¶[0050]); and
updating, by the processor, the DRM data to disable playback of the first piece of content from the file on the first device in response to the second device being offline for a predetermined period (Swenson, ¶[0054]- ¶[0057], the enforcement of the maximum number of simultaneous accesses to the content governed by the original usage right).
Swenson does not explicitly teach the following limitation that Grab teaches:
offline for a predetermined period (Grab, ¶[0042]- ¶[0043], where a stored timestamp is based on the current time of the system clock when the predetermined event occurred, determine whether the current time of the system clock of the playback device is consistent with the time-limiting rule associated with a piece of content, determine whether the system clock of the playback device is valid by comparing the measured time difference to the at least one reference time difference using the playback device. ¶[0082]- ¶[0084], DRM system supports different classes of playback device)
Swenson in view of Grab are analogous art because they are from the “same field of endeavor” and are from the same “problem solving area”. Namely, they pertain to the field of “managing rights to playback of media content”. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the invention of Swenson in view of Grab to include the idea of preventing copying of protected content and facilitate authorized use by consumers on their devices (Grab, ¶[0003]).
Regarding Claim 2, Swenson in view of Grab discloses the automated process of claim 1, further comprising retaining the file on the first device and the second device in response to the DRM data disabling playback of the first piece of content from the file (Grab, ¶[0086], the playback device can also record timestamps related to the playback of specific pieces of DRM protected content. Also Swenson, ¶[0054]- ¶[0057], the enforcement of the maximum number of simultaneous accesses to the content governed by the original usage right).
Regarding Claim 3, Swenson in view of Grab discloses the automated process of claim 1, further comprising:
updating, by the processor, the DRM data to enable the first device and the second device to playback a second piece of content (Swenson, ¶[0047], content provider system issues usage rights that allow delegation of rendering rights to another DRM application. ¶[0059], the DRM software on both client device and local server is used to manage security and create the sublicense usage right. Also Grab, ¶[0086], the playback device can also record timestamps related to the playback of specific pieces of DRM protected content); and
updating, by the processor, the DRM data to disable playback of the second piece of content from a second file stored on the first device in response to active playback of the second piece of content on the second device (Swenson, ¶[0047], content provider system issues usage rights that allow delegation of rendering rights to another DRM application. ¶[0059], the DRM software on both client device and local server is used to manage security and create the sublicense usage right. Also Grab, ¶[0086], the playback device can also record timestamps related to the playback of specific pieces of DRM protected content).
Regarding Claim 4, Swenson in view of Grab discloses the automated process of claim 3, further comprising updating, by the processor, the DRM data to enable the first device to playback the second piece of content from the second file in response to terminated playback of the second piece of content on the second device (Swenson, ¶[0047], content provider system issues usage rights that allow delegation of rendering rights to another DRM application. ¶[0059], the DRM software on both client device and local server is used to manage security and create the sublicense usage right. Also Grab, ¶[0086], the playback device can also record timestamps related to the playback of specific pieces of DRM protected content).
Regarding Claim 5, Swenson in view of Grab the automated process of claim 1, wherein the DRM data is stored on the DRM server remote from the first device and the second device (Swenson, ¶[0047], content provider system issues usage rights that allow delegation of rendering rights to another DRM application. ¶[0059], the DRM software on both client device and local server is used to manage security and create the sublicense usage right. Also Grab, ¶[0086], the playback device can also record timestamps related to the playback of specific pieces of DRM protected content).
Regarding Claim 7, Swenson in view of Grab discloses the automated process of claim 1, wherein the processor determines the second device is offline in response to a status message from the second device being overdue (Swenson, ¶[0044], the client device controls the transmission of the protected content by decrypting and rendering the content. ¶[0047], the content provider system issues the original usage rights to the local server. The original usage rights specify whether the local server can delegate content rendering rights to the client device. ¶[0049]- ¶[0050]).
Regarding Claim 8, Swenson discloses an automated process comprising:
sending, using Internet protocol (IP), a file containing a first piece of content for local storage on a first playback device and on a second playback discrete from the first playback device (Swenson, ¶[0012]- ¶[0015], a first digital request corresponding to a first request for use of the content is transmitted from a secondary device to the first device. The second digital license governs the use of the content by the secondary device and has a second expiration time period that is less than the first expiration time period);
updating digital rights management (DRM) data on a DRM server to disable playback of the first piece of content from the file on the second playback device in response to active playback of the first piece of content from the file on the first playback device (Swenson, ¶[0044], the client device controls the transmission of the protected content by decrypting and rendering the content. ¶[0047], the content provider system issues the original usage rights to the local server. The original usage rights specify whether the local server can delegate content rendering rights to the client device. ¶[0049]- ¶[0050]); and
updating the DRM data on the DRM server to reenable playback of the first piece of content from file stored on the second playback device in response to termination of the active playback of the first piece of content on the first playback device (Swenson, ¶[0054]- ¶[0057], the enforcement of the maximum number of simultaneous accesses to the content governed by the original usage right).
Swenson does not explicitly teach the following limitation that Grab teaches:
in response to termination of the active playback (Grab, ¶[0042]- ¶[0043], where a stored timestamp is based on the current time of the system clock when the predetermined event occurred, determine whether the current time of the system clock of the playback device is consistent with the time-limiting rule associated with a piece of content, determine whether the system clock of the playback device is valid by comparing the measured time difference to the at least one reference time difference using the playback device. ¶[0082]- ¶[0084], DRM system supports different classes of playback device);
Swenson in view of Grab are analogous art because they are from the “same field of endeavor” and are from the same “problem solving area”. Namely, they pertain to the field of “managing rights to playback of media content”. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the invention of Swenson in view of Grab to include the idea of preventing copying of protected content and facilitate authorized use by consumers on their devices (Grab, ¶[0003]).
Regarding Claim 9, Swenson in view of Grab discloses the automated process of claim 8, further comprising updating the DRM data on the DRM server to reenable playback of the first piece of content from the file on the second playback device in response to terminated playback of the first piece of content on the first playback device (Swenson, ¶[0047], content provider system issues usage rights that allow delegation of rendering rights to another DRM application. ¶[0059], the DRM software on both client device and local server is used to manage security and create the sublicense usage right. Also Grab, ¶[0086], the playback device can also record timestamps related to the playback of specific pieces of DRM protected content).
Regarding Claim 10, Swenson in view of Grab discloses the automated process of claim 9, further comprising receiving, by the DRM server, a request from the first playback device to update the DRM data in response to the first playback device terminating the active playback of the first piece of content from the file (Swenson, ¶[0047], content provider system issues usage rights that allow delegation of rendering rights to another DRM application. ¶[0059], the DRM software on both client device and local server is used to manage security and create the sublicense usage right. Also Grab, ¶[0086], the playback device can also record timestamps related to the playback of specific pieces of DRM protected content).
Regarding Claim 11, Swenson in view of Grab discloses the automated process of claim 8, further comprising updating the DRM data on the DRM server to disable playback of the first piece of content from the file on the first playback device in response to active playback of the first piece of content from the file on the second playback device (Swenson, ¶[0044], the client device controls the transmission of the protected content by decrypting and rendering the content. ¶[0047], the content provider system issues the original usage rights to the local server. The original usage rights specify whether the local server can delegate content rendering rights to the client device. ¶[0049]- ¶[0050]).
Regarding Claim 12, Swenson in view of Grab discloses the automated process of claim 8, wherein the DRM server triggers deletion of the file from the first playback device and the second playback device in response to the DRM data indicating an account associated with the first playback device and the second playback device has reached a playback limit for the first piece of content (Swenson, ¶[0047], content provider system issues usage rights that allow delegation of rendering rights to another DRM application. ¶[0059], the DRM software on both client device and local server is used to manage security and create the sublicense usage right. Also Grab, ¶[0086], the playback device can also record timestamps related to the playback of specific pieces of DRM protected content).
Regarding Claim 13, Swenson in view of Grab discloses the automated process of claim 12, wherein the playback limit comprises a playback count limit or an available duration limit (Swenson, ¶[0047], content provider system issues usage rights that allow delegation of rendering rights to another DRM application. ¶[0059], the DRM software on both client device and local server is used to manage security and create the sublicense usage right. Also Grab, ¶[0086], the playback device can also record timestamps related to the playback of specific pieces of DRM protected content).
Regarding Claim 14, Swenson in view of Grab discloses the automated process of claim 8, further comprising updating the DRM data to disable playback of the first piece of content from the file on the first playback device and the second playback device in response to the first playback device and the second playback device being offline for a predetermined period (Swenson, ¶[0044], the client device controls the transmission of the protected content by decrypting and rendering the content. ¶[0047], the content provider system issues the original usage rights to the local server. The original usage rights specify whether the local server can delegate content rendering rights to the client device. ¶[0049]- ¶[0050]).
Regarding Claim 15, Swenson discloses a digital rights management (DRM) system comprising a processor in electronic communication with a non-transitory memory configured to store instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the DRM system to perform operations, the operations comprising:
sending, at least partially over a wireless communication protocol, a file containing a first piece of content to a first playback device and to a second playback device for local storage, wherein the second playback device is discrete from the first playback device (Swenson, ¶[0012]- ¶[0015], a first digital request corresponding to a first request for use of the content is transmitted from a secondary device to the first device. The second digital license governs the use of the content by the secondary device and has a second expiration time period that is less than the first expiration time period);
updating digital rights management (DRM) data on the DRM system to disable playback of the first piece of content from the file on the second playback device in response to active playback of the first piece of content from the file on the first playback device (Swenson, ¶[0044], the client device controls the transmission of the protected content by decrypting and rendering the content. ¶[0047], the content provider system issues the original usage rights to the local server. The original usage rights specify whether the local server can delegate content rendering rights to the client device. ¶[0049]- ¶[0050]); and
playback of the first piece of content from the file stored on the second playback device in response to termination of the active playback of the first piece of on the first playback device (Swenson, ¶[0054]- ¶[0057], the enforcement of the maximum number of simultaneous accesses to the content governed by the original usage right);
wherein the DRM system communicates with the first playback device and the second playback device using an internet-protocol (IP) communication channel (Swenson, ¶[0033]- ¶[0035], the content or service provider issuing the original license or usage rights to the end user of the local server controls whether or not this streaming is allowed and whether a limit is placed on the number of client devices that may simultaneously render the streamed content governed by the usage rights).
Swenson does not explicitly teach the following limitation that Grab teaches:
in response to termination of the active playback (Grab, ¶[0042]- ¶[0043], where a stored timestamp is based on the current time of the system clock when the predetermined event occurred, determine whether the current time of the system clock of the playback device is consistent with the time-limiting rule associated with a piece of content, determine whether the system clock of the playback device is valid by comparing the measured time difference to the at least one reference time difference using the playback device. ¶[0082]- ¶[0084], DRM system supports different classes of playback device).
Swenson in view of Grab are analogous art because they are from the “same field of endeavor” and are from the same “problem solving area”. Namely, they pertain to the field of “managing rights to playback of media content”. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the invention of Swenson in view of Grab to include the idea of preventing copying of protected content and facilitate authorized use by consumers on their devices (Grab, ¶[0003]).
Regarding Claim 16, Swenson in view of Grab discloses the DRM system of claim 15, wherein the operations further comprise updating the DRM data on the DRM system to enable playback of the first piece of content from the file on the second playback device in response to terminated playback of the first piece of content on the first playback device (Grab, ¶[0086], the playback device can also record timestamps related to the playback of specific pieces of DRM protected content. Also Swenson, ¶[0054]- ¶[0057], the enforcement of the maximum number of simultaneous accesses to the content governed by the original usage right).
Regarding Claim 17, Swenson in view of Grab discloses the DRM system of claim 15, wherein the operations further comprise receiving, by the DRM system, a request from the first playback device to update the DRM data in response to the first playback device terminating the active playback of the first piece of content from the file (Swenson, ¶[0047], content provider system issues usage rights that allow delegation of rendering rights to another DRM application. ¶[0059], the DRM software on both client device and local server is used to manage security and create the sublicense usage right. Also Grab, ¶[0086], the playback device can also record timestamps related to the playback of specific pieces of DRM protected content).
Regarding Claim 18, Swenson in view of Grab discloses the DRM system of claim 15, wherein the operations further comprise updating the DRM data on the DRM system to disable playback of the first piece of content from the file on the first playback device in response to active playback of the first piece of content from the file on the second playback device (Swenson, ¶[0047], content provider system issues usage rights that allow delegation of rendering rights to another DRM application. ¶[0059], the DRM software on both client device and local server is used to manage security and create the sublicense usage right. Also Grab, ¶[0086], the playback device can also record timestamps related to the playback of specific pieces of DRM protected content).
Regarding Claim 19, Swenson in view of Grab discloses the DRM system of claim 15, wherein the operations further comprise triggering deletion of the file from the first playback device and the second playback device in response to the DRM data indicating an account associated with the first playback device and the second playback device has reached a playback limit, wherein the playback limit comprises a playback count limit or an available playback duration limit of the first piece of content (Swenson, ¶[0047], content provider system issues usage rights that allow delegation of rendering rights to another DRM application. ¶[0059], the DRM software on both client device and local server is used to manage security and create the sublicense usage right. Also Grab, ¶[0086], the playback device can also record timestamps related to the playback of specific pieces of DRM protected content).
Regarding Claim 20, Swenson in view of Grab discloses the DRM system of claim 15, wherein the operations further comprise updating the DRM data to disable playback of the first piece of content from the file on the first playback device and the second playback device in response to the first playback device or the second playback device being offline for a predetermined period (Swenson, ¶[0044], the client device controls the transmission of the protected content by decrypting and rendering the content. ¶[0047], the content provider system issues the original usage rights to the local server. The original usage rights specify whether the local server can delegate content rendering rights to the client device. ¶[0049]- ¶[0050]).
Regarding Claim 21, Swenson in view of Grab discloses the automated process of claim 1, further comprising reenabling, by the processor, the first device to playback the first piece of content from the file by updating the DRM data at the DRM server in response to the second device coming online (Swenson, ¶[0047], content provider system issues usage rights that allow delegation of rendering rights to another DRM application. ¶[0059], the DRM software on both client device and local server is used to manage security and create the sublicense usage right. Also Grab, ¶[0086], the playback device can also record timestamps related to the playback of specific pieces of DRM protected content).
Conclusion
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WASIKA NIPA whose telephone number is (571)272-8923. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F (7:30 - 5:00).
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, JEFFRY PWU can be reached on 571-272-6798. 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 the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/WASIKA NIPA/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2433
Prosecution Insights