Detailed Action
This office action is in response to applicant’s submission filed on May 26, 2026. Claims 4 and 14 were previously canceled. Claims 21-22 are new. Claims 1-3, 5-13, and 15-22 are pending and rejected.
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 .
Response to Amendment
This communication is in response to the amendment filed on May 26, 2026. The Examiner has acknowledged the amended claims 1 and 11. Claims 4 and 14 have been previously canceled. Claims 21-22 are new. Claims 1-3, 5-13, and 15-22 and are rejected.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s Arguments (Remarks) filed May 26, 2026 have been fully considered, but are not persuasive. Note that this action is made FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a).
Applicant argues that the prior art does not teach the newly added limitation. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive. Applicant relies on particular examples of locations, such as regions of video frames or timestamps of audio tracks that are not required by independent claims 1 and 11. Such limitations are separately recited in the dependent claims, confirming that independent claims are not limited to those particular types of locations. The primary reference provides the AV-content and watermark context while the secondary reference is relied upon for its teaching of associating respective constraint types. In particular, paragraph 0040 teaches determining a starting location based on a first constraint type on a second constraint type. The fact that secondary reference implements this correspondence in a wireless ACK-scheduling context does not negate the disclosed location to constraint correspondence. Further, the motivation to combine is not merely the desired result. Applying the location to constraint correspondence of secondary reference to the predetermined locations of primary reference would provide the predictable benefit of determining the applicable rule based on detected location. Applicant has not shown that such as application would have been beyond the skill of a POSITA of produced an unexpected result. Accordingly, applicant’s arguments do not overcome the rejection. See also 103 rejection below.
Applicant’s argument that Sengupta is non-analogous art is not persuasive. Applicant incorrectly frames analogous art as a threshold requirement that must be satisfied between the references before they may be combined. Under MPEP 2141.01(a), the references relied upon in a 103 rejection need not be analogous to each other, the pertinent inquiry is whether the relied upon reference is analogous to the claimed invention. Sengupta is reasonability pertinent to the claimed invention because it teaches determining different locations based on corresponding constraint types. The fact that Sengupta applies this relationship to wireless-channel scheduling rather than AV content does not negate the pertinence of that teaching. MacKay supplies the AV-content context, while Sengupta supplies the location/constraint relationship. Further, Examiner has provided a reasoned basis for combining the teachings: applying Sengupta’s location/constraint relationship to MackKay would allow the system to determine the applicable rule based on the location associated with the AV content. This is a predictable use of Sengupta’s disclosed relationship in MacKay’s existing content-protection framework and is not merely a statement of the desired result. Applicant therefore has not shown that the combination lacks a sufficient motivation or that Sengupta is non-analogous art.
The amendments to the claims have overturned the claim objections.
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 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 1-3, 5-13, and 15-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable by US 2017/0242988 A1 to MacKay et al. (hereinafter, “MacKay”) in view of US 2022/0287069 A1 to Sengupta et al. (hereinafter, “Sengupta”).
Regarding claim 1, MacKay discloses: A media player comprising:
a hardware processor (“processor (or a machine that emulates a processor)” [0038]); and
a system memory storing a software code (“Firmware 202, comprising basic input-output software or BIOS, often implemented in read-only, persistent memory such as ROM, PROM, EPROM, or flash memory” [0031]);
the hardware processor configured to execute the software code to (“The decision as to whether the system software, drivers, and/or hardware may process the content, or whether certain modifications should be applied to the content as it is processed, is based on a qualification or inspection technique implemented by a separate process that is operable to check the signature or cryptographically-derived identity of the system software, drivers, and/or hardware. In one embodiment, the determination of whether content may be processed or modified is independent of mechanisms or services such as file names of program files which implement system software or software driver code, and is also independent of cryptographically signed code and native operating system access control mechanisms or services provided by the operating system or system software itself” [0011]):
receive audio-video (AV) content (“Once these files are accessed, the user can instruct computer 101 to process the files and/or send them to other devices in system 100. For example, a user might download an audio file from networked computer 130 and store the file on hard disk 110” [0030]; “For example, without limitation, the present invention could be readily applied in the context of video, image, text, audio-visual, or other content types” [0024]);
receive a command to perform an action using the AV content (“Thus, the inspector module is able to determine the identity of the drivers that are actually used to process the content, and can then locate the drivers' corresponding registry entries and/or compute the cryptographic hash of the drivers and compare each hash value with a list of known good (or known bad) drivers, or perform other analysis, as described in more detail elsewhere herein” [0082]; “Referring to FIG. 4A, in one embodiment each inspector module 230 is operable, upon receipt of an appropriate command from inspection manager software 232, to locate drivers in the appropriate driver chain (410), to inspect those drivers using predefined criteria (such as those set forth above) (420), and to send the results of the inspection to inspection manager 232 (430)” [0084]);
inspect the AV content for a presence of a watermark (“Watermark screening is provided by invoking a filter module to examine content before it is delivered to the output hardware. The filter module is operable to prevent delivery of the content if it detects a predefined protection mark” [0028] [Examiner notes that inspecting here demonstrates how absence and presence of a watermark is mapped])
embedded in the AV content at one or more predetermined locations, wherein different predetermined locations within the AV content correspond During the first phase, the unwatermarked content is processed to identify and/or generate a variety of locations at which watermarks or fingerprints can subsequently be inserted. During the second phase, the watermarks or fingerprints are actually inserted at the specified locations” [0073] [Examiner notes that the system can inspect if the media content is watermarked or not since after analyzing it and categorizing it as unwatermarked it identifies a location within the content to insert a watermark. These locations are the ones used to see if the media has the watermark in the first place during inspection]; “As described below, in some embodiments a content watermarking or fingerprinting solution may be implemented in the system and/or client library. For convenience, “watermarking” will be used to refer to the mechanism that embeds information in content, whereas a “watermark” will refer to information that is embedded statically within the content to provide, for example, an indication of ownership and/or rules for content use. A “fingerprint” will generally refer to information that is embedded dynamically, as part of content release, and that (typically) identifies the user who performed the transaction, thus enabling content to be traced back to the user if, e.g., the content is subsequently used or distributed in an unauthorized manner. Note that a “watermarking” mechanism can be used to embed either a watermark or a fingerprint, depending on the nature of the information that is embedded” [0060] [Examiner notes that the first text discloses generating and specifying multiple predetermined embedding locations in the AV content. This second text was brought in because it discloses embedding different categories of usage-related information (ownership rules vs. user-identifying fingerprints). The combination of these texts is consistent with the claimed limitation between different predetermined locations and different types of usage constraints since it shows embedding different types of usage-related information at multiple different specified locations]);
identify, when inspecting reveals the presence of the watermark, a business rule corresponding to the presence of the watermark (“The present invention relates generally to computer processing of protected digital content by applications and supporting operating system services implemented by kernel mode or user mode modules, also known as drivers or filters, respectively. The invention provides a set of services for inspecting, classifying, controlling, and modifying the functionality of the operating system modules according to the security policies of an application and/or a digital rights management (DRM) system linked with the application and responsible for ensuring the secure processing of digital content. The invention provides an extensible set of functions for protecting against the unauthorized use of digital content by enabling the application and/or its associated DRM system to restrict processing of, or to impose modifications to, the content depending on whether system modules are present which do not conform to the security policies of the application or DRM system. Such non-conformance can be determined by a variety of techniques, including without limitation, inspection, classification, and/or control of a module's dynamic behavior, static structure, and/or other identifying characteristics” [0026] [Examiner notes that this text shows inspecting, analyzing the behavior/structure, classifying, determining where it fits in the defined categories (trusted, non-trusted, etc.), and security policy accordance (critical link to business rule as the security policies are formal rules that can define what is/is not acceptable). The system analyzes the module (e.g. for a watermark presence), then classifies it based on defined rules (policies) -- meaning it must reference and match against those rules]);
permit or prevent execution of the command to perform the action based on the business rule (“Upon receiving inspection data 602, policy enforcement manager 234 is operable to determine whether the appropriate policy criteria 604 have been satisfied, and permit the release of the content and/or take appropriate defensive action accordingly” [0112]); and
in response to permitting execution of the command to perform the action, insert an additional watermark into the AV content or modify the watermark of the AV content (“The content producer pre-processes the content in order to obtain the information needed to enable transaction-time watermarking or fingerprinting at the consumer system (as described in more detail below)” [0027]; “As described in more detail below, the present invention employs a combination of techniques, including transaction-time watermarking (or fingerprinting), transaction-time screening, driver software validation, and/or content transfer protection to deter and/or prevent attempts to circumvent the protection of electronic content. The goal of these mechanisms is to protect content as much as possible from the time it is packaged until it is experienced by the consumer. 1. Content Fingerprinting As described below, in some embodiments a content watermarking or fingerprinting solution may be implemented in the system and/or client library. For convenience, “watermarking” will be used to refer to the mechanism that embeds information in content, whereas a “watermark” will refer to information that is embedded statically within the content to provide, for example, an indication of ownership and/or rules for content use. A “fingerprint” will generally refer to information that is embedded dynamically, as part of content release, and that (typically) identifies the user who performed the transaction, thus enabling content to be traced back to the user if, e.g., the content is subsequently used or distributed in an unauthorized manner. Note that a “watermarking” mechanism can be used to embed either a watermark or a fingerprint, depending on the nature of the information that is embedded. In one embodiment, a credentialed watermarking engine is used to implement a predefined interface. Fingerprint attributes are associated with content to define the type of technology used to insert the fingerprint and the information to be included therein. An audio fingerprint can be applied at the time content is released, e.g., to a consumer using a music player application” [0059-0061] [Examiner notes that this text shows how a watermark is inserted by a creator or a distributor when the transaction-time watermarking happens in response to executing a command to perform the action whether it is playing a song or watching a video. Examiner also notes that this text describes adding a watermark dynamically when a transaction or release event occurs. The modifying occurs by turning a static ownership mark into one that includes user-specific of transaction-specific data. The command is a triggering event which includes being released, playback, downloaded, distribution, etc. and initiates watermark insertion or modification. This text illustrates a system that describes a transaction-time watermarking/fingerprinting system (watermarks being dynamically embedded or updated at the moment the content is released, accessed, or transferred, which aligns clearly with the claim limitation as it shows the exact dynamic operation (when an action, such as playback, transfer, or release is executed, the system adds or modifies a watermark)]).
MacKay does not disclose: embedded in the AV content at one or more predetermined locations, wherein different predetermined locations within the AV content correspond respectively to different types of constraints on usage of the AV content.
However, Sengupta discloses: embedded in the AV content at one or more predetermined locations, wherein different predetermined locations within the AV content correspond respectively to different types of constraints on usage of the AV content (“…determining a first starting location… where the first starting location may be based on a first constraint type, and determining a second starting location… where the second starting location may be based on a second constraint type” [0040] [Examiner notes that this secondary reference text establishes correspondence between location and constraint type, which is what is required by the term “respectively”. It shows that direct pairing of each location with a distinct type of constraint. Since the determination of each location is tied to a specific constraint type, the text makes it clear that different locations are governed by different constraint types, providing that specific linkage between location and type of constraint and showing that that linkage is not novel]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing
date of the claimed invention to modify MacKay with the added structure of Sengupta in order
for the system to be able to determine what rules apply just by checking the location.
Claim 11 recites substantially the same limitation as claim 1, in the form of a method for implementing the corresponding system, therefore it is rejected under the same rationale.
Regarding claims 2 and 12, a combination of MacKay-Sengupta disclose the system of claim 1/11.
MacKay further discloses: wherein modifying the watermark comprises replacing the watermark with another watermark (“The content producer pre-processes the content in order to obtain the information needed to enable transaction-time watermarking or fingerprinting at the consumer system (as described in more detail below)” [0027] [Examiner notes that transaction-time watermarking can include inserting an additional watermark (when adding the dynamic watermark at the time of transaction) or replacing a watermark (distributor can overwrite or replace a dynamic watermark with another one that is customized per user's transaction)]).
Regarding claims 3 and 13, a combination of MacKay-Sengupta disclose the system of claim 1/11.
MacKay further discloses: wherein the watermark comprises: (i) at least one visual watermark imperceptible to a human viewer of the AV content; (ii) at least one audio watermark imperceptible to the human viewer of the AV content; or (iii) at least one visual watermark and at least one audio watermark each imperceptible to the human viewer of the AV content (“A watermarking technology is used to embed imperceptible codes into the content as it is being released to the consumer” [0027]).
Regarding claim 5 and 15, a combination of MacKay-Sengupta disclose the system of claim 1/11.
MacKay further discloses: wherein the one or more predetermined locations comprise predetermined regions within one or more video frames of the AV content or a predetermined timestamp of an audio track of the AV content (“a “watermark” will refer to information that is embedded statically within the content to provide, for example, an indication of ownership and/or rules for content use” [0060] [Examiner notes that if a watermark is embedded statically within an AV content, then it is implied that this includes in a video frame and/or a timestamp of the AV content]).
Regarding claim 6 and 16, a combination of MacKay-Sengupta disclose the system of claim 1/11.
MacKay further discloses: wherein prior to receiving the AV content by the media player, the watermark is inserted into the AV content by a creator or a distributor of the AV content (“The present invention provides systems and methods for protecting digital content from the time it is packaged until it is experienced by the consumer. In one embodiment, a combination of watermarking and fingerprinting is used. The content producer pre-processes the content in order to obtain the information needed to enable transaction-time watermarking or fingerprinting at the consumer system (as described in more detail below)” [0027] [Examiner notes that this text shows how a watermark is inserted by a creator or a distributor when the transaction-time watermarking happens in response to executing a command to perform the action whether it is playing a song or watching a video. Examiner notes that this text explicitly states that protection starts before playback (before the media player “experiences” or plays/renders the content. The producer gathers data in advance so that the content is released).
Regarding claim 7 and 17, a combination of MacKay-Sengupta disclose the system of claim 1/11.
MacKay further discloses: wherein the additional watermark is inserted at a predetermined location within the AV content (“The content producer pre-processes the content in order to obtain the information needed to enable transaction-time watermarking or fingerprinting at the consumer system (as described in more detail below)” [0027] [Examiner notes that transaction-time watermarking can include inserting an additional watermark (when adding the dynamic watermark at the time of transaction) or replacing a watermark (distributor can overwrite or replace a dynamic watermark with another one that is customized per user's transaction)]).
Regarding claim 8 and 18, a combination of MacKay-Sengupta disclose the system of claim 1/11.
MacKay further discloses: wherein the action comprises playout of the AV content, and wherein inserting the additional watermark into the AV content or modifying the watermark of the AV content occurs: (i) after playout of a predetermined first segment of the AV content; (ii) during or after playout of a predetermined last segment of the AV content; or (iii) at a plurality of predetermined intervals during playout of the AV content (“The content producer pre-processes the content in order to obtain the information needed to enable transaction-time watermarking or fingerprinting at the consumer system (as described in more detail below)” [0027] [Examiner notes that the watermark is inserted at time of playout by the specific user]).
Regarding claim 9 and 19, a combination of MacKay-Sengupta disclose the system of claim 1/11.
MacKay further discloses: wherein the business rule permits or prevents at least one of playout of the AV content, transmission of the AV content to another system, or copying the AV content (“Upon receiving inspection data 602, policy enforcement manager 234 is operable to determine whether the appropriate policy criteria 604 have been satisfied, and permit the release of the content and/or take appropriate defensive action accordingly” [0112]).
Regarding claim 10 and 20, a combination of MacKay-Sengupta disclose the system of claim 1/11.
MacKay further discloses: wherein the business rule specifies one or more types of media players by which playout of the AV content is permitted (“Upon receiving inspection data 602, policy enforcement manager 234 is operable to determine whether the appropriate policy criteria 604 have been satisfied, and permit the release of the content and/or take appropriate defensive action accordingly” [0112]; “When an unacceptable module is detected during processing of protected content, the system is operable to respond in an appropriate manner. For example, in one embodiment three response options are provided: (1) return an error and deny the operation; (2) remove or disable the offending module and deny the operation; and (3) damage the content, but permit the operation to continue” [0119] [Examiner notes that the security policies enforced by the policy enforcement manager helps the system to see if that specific content can be released or played out by that corresponding system]).
Regarding claim 21 and 22, a combination of MacKay-Sengupta disclose the system of claims 1/11.
MacKay does not disclose: wherein the one or more predetermined locations comprise a plurality of predetermined locations corresponding to a same type of constraint and defining a maximum number of times the action is permitted to be performed.
However, Sengupta discloses: wherein the one or more predetermined locations comprise a plurality of predetermined locations corresponding to a same type of constraint and defining a maximum number of times the action is permitted to be performed (“Additionally or alternatively, the RRC signaling (e.g., transmitted and received prior to the DCI 205) may configure multiple bundling parameters (B's) (e.g., a second option), each B corresponding to each Nsched. In some cases, the RRC signaling may configure one or more bundling parameter(s) (B's) and corresponding thresholds (T's) on Nsched (e.g., a third option). Accordingly, any value of Nsched above T may indicate a bundling configuration 215 for which the B would apply. For example, the RRC signaling may configure (B, T)=(4,4) for if a number of PUCCH repetitions is greater than one (1) (e.g., the ACKs 230 are transmitted multiple times for each TB group 220). Alternatively, the RRC signaling may configure (B, T)=(3,5) for when a number of PUCCH repetitions is equal to one (1). Accordingly, as an example, if Nsched=6 and the number of PUCCH repetitions equals one (1), UE 115-a may limit the number of TBs 210 per TB group 220 to three (3) TBs 210 (e.g., B=3 if Nsched>T, and Nsched=6 which is greater than T=5)” [0130]; “In some examples of the method, apparatuses, and non-transitory computer-readable medium described herein, the bundled ACK feedback may be received at a starting location based on an ACK scheduling delay field transmitted in the DCI message, a number of subframes for the bundled ACK feedback, a number of downlink transmission subframes based on a repetition number field and resource assignment field, a minimum time interval between an end of the set of TBs and a start of the bundled ACK feedback, or a combination thereof” [0063] [Examiner notes that these texts teach configuring multiple bundling parameters associated with scheduling conditions, where the bundling parameter establishes a numerical constraint on the number of transport blocks in a transport-block group. It teaches that the UE may limit the number of TBs per TB group to 3, It also associates the bundling configuration with the number of PUCCH repetitions, which determining number of downlink transmission subframes based on a repetition number field. Together, these texts show a repetition-related constraint that establishes a numerical max on the number of transmission instances]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing
date of the claimed invention to modify MacKay with the added structure of Sengupta in order
for the system to be able to apply repetition dependent numerical constraints since doing so would provide a predictable mechanism for controlling the number of permitted repetitions of an operation.
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 SARON MATTHEWOS WORKU whose telephone number is (703)756-1761. The
examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9:30am - 6:30pm.
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, Linglan Edwards can be reached on 571-270-5440. 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.
/SARON MATTHEWOS WORKU/Examiner, Art Unit 2408
/LINGLAN EDWARDS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2408
Prosecution Insights