DETAILED ACTION
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Applicant's amendments filed on 10/02/2025 has been received and entered. Currently Claims 21-42 are pending.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 10/02/2025 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection.
Claim Objections
Claim 42 is objected to because of the following informalities: the claim recites “The system of claim 22”. It is suggested to amend to “The system of claim 32”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 21, 28-31 and 38-40 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Handal et al. US2013/0174271 (hereinafter Handal), in view of Oney et al. US2014/0068260 (hereinafter Oney), and Abrams et al. US2005/0273629 (hereinafter Abrams).
As per claim 21, Handal teaches a method comprising: retrieving, by first media component, via a URI that identifies a location on a remote server, key material for a encrypted media content item, wherein the URI is specific to the encrypted media content item (Handal Fig. 2 and paragraph [0030]-[0031], [0033]-[0034], [0054], [0058], security application retrieves key from security server using URI);
providing, by the first media component to a second media content component, the content decryption key for decrypting at least a portion of the encrypted media content item (Handal paragraph [0030]-[0031], [0034], [0054]-[0055], security application provides the decryption key to the media player).
Handal does not explicitly disclose retrieving, by a first media component, a license from a remote server;
generating, by the first media component, a content decryption key by decrypting encrypted key material using information from the license.
Oney teaches retrieving, by a first media component, a license from a remote server (Oney paragraph [0028], [0037], retrieve license);
generating, by the first media component, a content decryption key by decrypting encrypted key material using information from the license (Oney paragraph [0045]-[0046], [0048], obtain intermediate decryption key using license and decrypt encrypted content key using the intermediate decryption key).
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the invention of Handal of requesting a key for content playback with the teachings of Oney to include encrypted content keys and retrieving a license to decrypt the content keys in order to protect the content keys and provide granular access control to content keys and corresponding media content.
Handal in view of Oney does not explicitly disclose wherein license is encrypted and specific to a designated user account, and wherein the designated user account comprises a private key able to decrypt the license.
Abrams teaches wherein license is encrypted and specific to a designated user account, and wherein the designated user account comprises a private key able to decrypt the license (Abrams paragraph [0045], [0049]-[0050], client user registers with DRM manager and has corresponding public/private key associated with the user account. license is encrypted with the user public key and decryptable using the private key).
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the invention of Handal in view of Oney of requesting a license for content playback with the teachings of Abrams to include registering a user and encrypting/decrypting a license with the user’s public/private keys in order to securely transmit the license to a registered user of the system.
As per claim 28, Handal in view of Oney and Abrams teaches the method of claim 21, further comprising: storing the retrieved license on a local storage medium (Oney paragraph [0028], [0037], [0045]-[0046], [0048], obtain and store license; Abrams paragraph [0045], [0049]-[0050], obtain and store license).
As per claim 29, Handal in view of Oney and Abrams teaches the method of claim 21, wherein the encrypted media content item comprises streaming media content via a network (Handal Fig. 2 and paragraph [0024], [0034], streaming content).
As per claim 30, Handal in view of Oney and Abrams teaches the method of claim 21, wherein the content decryption key is configured to be used by the second media component to decrypt the encrypted media content item (Handal paragraph [0030]-[0031], [0034], [0054]-[0055], media player uses key to playback content; Oney paragraph [0048], decrypt encrypted content).
As per claims 31 and 38-40, the claims claim a system and a non-transitory computer-readable medium essentially corresponding to the method claims 21 and 28-29 above, and they are rejected, at least for the same reasons.
Claims 22-24, 26-27, 32-34 and 36-37 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Handal in view of Oney and Abrams, and further in view of Hierro et al. US2012/0284802 (hereinafter Hierro).
As per claim 22, Handal in view of Oney and Abrams teaches the method of claim 21.
Handal in view of Oney and Abrams does not explicitly disclose wherein license is retrieved in response to receiving a request for content decryption key from first media component in accordance with a designated key exchange protocol.
Hierro teaches wherein license is retrieved in response to receiving a request for content decryption key from first media component in accordance with a designated key exchange protocol (Hierro paragraph [0053]-[0057], [0102]-[0103], [0120], retrieve license).
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the invention of Handal in view of Oney and Abrams of requesting a license for content playback with the teachings of Hierro to include requesting a license for different DRM schemes in order to provide the client device to playback content to which different DRM schemes have been applied.
As per claim 23, Handal in view of Oney, Abrams and Hierro teaches the method of claim 22, wherein the designated key exchange protocol corresponds with a custom digital rights management (DRM) protocol identifier (Hierro paragraph [0053]-[0057], [0103], drm identifier).
As per claim 24, Handal in view of Oney, Abrams and Hierro teaches the method of claim 22, wherein the request for the content decryption key identifies a content management account (Handal paragraph [0030]-[0031], [0034], [0054]-[0055], request for key; Oney paragraph [0032], [0035], check client’s subscription; Hierro paragraph [0102]-[0103], [0120]).
As per claim 26, Handal in view of Oney and Abrams teaches the method of claim 21, the second media component and a device executing the first media component (Handal Fig. 2 and paragraph [0030]-[0031], [0054], media player and security application).
Handal in view of Oney and Abrams does not explicitly disclose media player native to an operating system.
Hierro teaches media player native to an operating system (Hierro paragraph [0026], [0109], native player).
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the invention of Handal in view of Oney and Abrams of requesting a license for content playback with the teachings of Hierro to include a native media content player to play media content in order to allow for a greater performance in reproducing the media content than non-native media players.
As per claim 27, Handal in view of Oney, Abrams and Hierro teaches the method of claim 26, wherein the first media component and the second media component are operable to communicate via an application programming interface (API) native to the operating system (Handal Fig. 2 and paragraph [0030]-[0031]).
As per claims 32-34 and 36-37, the claims claim a system essentially corresponding to the method claims 22-24 and 26-27 above, and they are rejected, at least for the same reasons.
Claims 25 and 35 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Handal in view of Oney and Abrams, and further in view of Lee US2010/0199105.
As per claim 25, Handal in view of Oney and Abrams teaches the method of claim 21.
Handal in view of Oney and Abrams does not explicitly disclose wherein license includes conditions on an amount of times media content item has been played or a designated time period for playing the media content item.
Lee teaches wherein license includes conditions on an amount of times media content item has been played or a designated time period for playing the media content item (Lee paragraph [0036], [0046], [0068], license includes usage restriction information).
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the invention of Handal in view of Oney and Abrams of requesting a license for content playback with the teachings of Lee to include licenses with usage restrictions and checking the usage restrictions of the received license before content playback in order to provide granular management of content usage.
As per claim 35, the claim claims a system essentially corresponding to the method claim 25 above, and is rejected, at least for the same reasons.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 41 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim 42 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the claim objection, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HENRY TSANG whose telephone number is (571)270-7959. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am - 5pm EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Farid Homayounmehr can be reached on (571) 272-3739. 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.
/HENRY TSANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2495